B 



3« 



CERTIFICATE NOTE-BOOK 

OF 

EUROPEAN HISTORY, 1814-1848 

A Course of Study 

CONTAINING 

THIRTY-TWO TYPICAL QUESTIONS 

ARRANGED IN THE FORM OF 

£/G//T ONE-HOUR TEST PAPERS 

WITH 

FULL ANSWERS, HINTS, AND REFERENCES 



Brief Survey of the Period 

Hints on Answering Questions in History 

Suggestive Notes and Queries on Teaching History 

Select List of Books useful to the Teacher and Learner 

Notable Topics and Sayings of the Period 

Short Biographies and a Vocabulary 



J. S. LINDSEY. 



"The student is to read History actively and not passively." -R. W. Emerson. 

!,,„. "J^^nT Vrf' Z''"" "^ ""'' ^«^*'-««^«'''« ««. ^uch, in the main, the man 
himself will he. Modern History touches us so nearly . . . that we ar iZ 1 
find our own way through it, and to on>e our knowledge to ourselvl^'-lZ.Z'l 



Cambridge 

HEFFER & SONS 
1902. 

All Rights Reserved. 



CERTIFICATE NOTE-BOOK 

OF 

EUROPEAN HISTORY, 1814=1848 

A Course of Study 

CONTAINING 

THIRTY-TWO TYPICAL QUESTIONS 

ARRANGED IN THE FORM OF 

EIGHT ONE-HOUR TEST PAPERS 

WITH 

FULL ANSWERS, HINTS, AND REFERENCES 



Brief Survey of the Period 

Hints on Answering Questions in History 

Suggestive Notes and Queries on Teaching History 

Select List of Books useful to the Teacher and Learner 

Notable Topics and Sayings of the Period 

Short Biographies and a Vocabulary 



J. S. LINDSEY. 



" The student is to read Hisloiy actively and not passively'' — R. W. Emerson. 

" Whatever a man's notions of these later centuries are, such, in the main, the man 
hirnsel/will be. Modern History touches us so nearly . . . that we are bound to 
find our own way through it, and to owe our knoivledge to ourselves." — Lord Acton. 



Cambridge 

HEFFER & SONS. 
1902. 

All Rip-hf.<: Reserved. 



CLASSIFIED TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



A. AIDS TO STUDY. 



B. GUIDES TO BOOKS. 



Introductdry Sketch. 
Hints on Answering: History Questions. 
Formulae in History Questions. 
Topics of the Period (300). 
Chronological Synopsis. 
Contemporary Saying-s. 
Thirty-two Typical Questions. 
Additional Questions (44) 
Vocabulary of Political Terms. 



Page. 


Page, 


v.-vni. 


3 


I 
8 


4 


9 


5 


10 
II 


5 
6 


12 


7 


47 
48 


45-46 



Bibliographies. 
Teaching of History. 
Study of History. 
Text-Books, Atlases, etc : 

(i) General European History. 

(2) Special Period. 
Larger and Special Works. 
Historical Fiction : British and 

Foreign. 
Biographies, Memoirs, etc. 



C> SCHEME OF WORK (arranged according to /e/wrf.?, not countries) 



(i) Periods. 



I. Reaction, 1814-1818. 

Lodge, ch. xxiv. §§49-56 ; ch. xxv. §§1-6. 
Fyffe, ch. xi.-xiii., pp. 349-457. 
Phillips, ch. i.-iii. 

II. The First Struggle, 1818-1821. 

Lodge, ch. xx\^, §§7-10. 

Fyffe, ch. xiii., xiv., pp. 457-501- 

Phillips, ch. iv.-v. 

III. Greek Revolt, 1821-1830. 

Lodge, ch. xxv., §§ii-i8. 
Fyffe, ch. xiv., xv., pp. 501-602. 
Phillips, ch. vi.-vii. 

IV. Revolutions, 1830-1831. 

Lodge, ch. xxv., §§19-30. 
Fyffe, ch. xvi., pp. 603-646. 
Phillips, ch. viii., ix. 

^•:" i-Prlk, «i§5iiE84S. "A ;*,• 'V 
Lodge, ch. °xxv.,''§§3V-°36. '•' ■ ■ • 
FYi»EEf .oh» pivii., J^y^ij,^ ^._ 

Pnii.'Lj'ps,°i:b3.x._?^i : °_ ," 

VI. Revolution, 1848. 

Lodge, ch. xxvi., §§1-27. 
Fyffe, ch. xix., xx. 

Phillips, ch. xii., xiii. 

VII. National Events, 1814-1848. 

SeiGNOBOS, Pari I., deals with mdividual 
countries, viz., England (2-4), France (5-7), 
Netherlands (8), Switzerland (9), Spain and 
Portugal (10), Italy (11), Germany (12-17), 
Scandinavia (18), Russia (19), Ottoman Empire, 
etc. (20-21 ). 

VIII.InternationalEvents,i8i4-i848. 

SeiGNOBOS, Parts II., III. : Transformations 
in the Material Conditions of Political Life (22), 
Church and Catholic Parties (23), International 
Revolutionary Parties (24), Metternich System, 
1815-1830 (25) ; Rivalry between Russia and 
England, 1830-1854(26). 



(ii) Subject-Matter of Answers. 



France in Spring, 1814. 
The Hundred Days : Effects. 
Metternich 's Influence, 1814-1818. 
Holy .\lliance : Development. 

Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle. 
The Carlsbad Decrees. 
Latin Revolts. 
Troppau and Laibach. 

Latin Reactions. 
Castlereagh and Canning. 
Greek Revolt : Outside Influences. 
Greek Independence : Navarino. 

Charles X.'s Accession. 
French Revolution. 
Belgian Revolution. 
Polish Revolt. 

Mehemet Ali and Europe. 

French Revolution. 

Sonderbund. 

Liberalism : Growth, 1830-1848. 

Successful Revolt : Central Europe. 
Restoration ; Austrian Empire. 
Magyarism : Rise and Fall. 
German Parliament. 

Germany : Constitution. 
Prussia : History. 
Russia : Alexander I. 
Turkey : Eastern Question. 



Europe : Territorial Arrangements. 
Colonies of European Powers. 
Sea-Power : International Influence. 
Ideals : National, Constitutional. 



PREFACE. 

The kind reception given to the first instalment of " Problems 
and Exercises in English Histor}' " (Book B, 1399-1603) seems 
to warrant the belief that a similar book dealing with European 
History would be found useful by teachers and students ; 
and accordingly the special period prescribed by the Board of 
Education for the Teachers' Certificate Examination, 1902, has 
been selected for the experiment now submitted to the public. 
The period abounds both in romantic episodes and in suggestive 
political lessons : it is to the latter aspect that attention has 
been almost exclusively directed in the following pages. The 
author has selected for treatment those topics which are both 
intrinsicallj- important and likely to find a place in a paper on the 
" outlines " of the period. 

The book is not designed, to quote the words of the late 
Mrs. Sheldon Barnes, " to rob the child of the right to do his 
own thinking," but to help the "child" to exercise that "right." 
Practically the help here offered is threefold. The author has 
tried to pick out the best books to read ; to discover what our 
educational authorities consider our young students of History 
ought to read about ; and to point out, by precept and example, 
how to utilise the results of this reading. Thus the book is not 
a text-book, professing to contain everything that anybody need 
know about the period ; but it is rather of the nature of a note- 
book or exercise-book, intended to encourage and facilitate the 
habit of taking notes and writing essays on historical subjects. 
In mentioning books, where materials or notes for such essays 
may best be found, the author has deemed it expedient to pass 
over books designed to serve only a temporary purpose, and to 
give references only to books possessing permanent value or 
interest. At the same time, his omission to mention any book 
is not to be interpreted as condemnation. 

Little space has here been gi\-en to British History ; but in 

the author's companion volume entitled " Problems and Exercises 

in English History, Book G, 1688-1832," there will be found 

about a dozen answers on the period 1814-1832 and a fairly full 

bibliography of British History, both general and special (that is, 

on the period 1688-1832). 

J. S. L. 



PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS FOR USE. 

I. PLAN OF THIS PAGE. The Preface states the general object and intention of the book; 
the Introduction, with its marg-inal references to the Questions answered in this Series, gives a 
bird's-eye view of its subject-matter ; the Synoptic Table of Contents not only provides a topical 
index but also suggests a Course of Study ; the present page explains the methods adopted by the 
author or recommended to the teacher and learner of Historv. 

A. Intentions. 

II. FORM OF THE BOOK. Each page has been 
made complete in itself, and is as a rule devoted to 
a single Topic or to closely related Topics ; and a 
large-size page has been adopted in order that a com- 
prehensive view of the Topic handled might be taken 
at a glance, and also that the book, in its interleaved 
form, should be suitable to serve as a basis for a note- 
book, or for lesson-notes. 

III. THE QUESTIONS do not profess to exhaust 
the period handled, but they ma}' be regarded as 
typical, in both matter and st3'le, of the questions 
usually proposed at our public examinations ; they 
follow the hig"hwa)'S of history and seldom deviate 
into bye-wa3-s ; and they are pitched rather above than 
below the usual standard, because ample material for 
the easier questions is supplied on the "Topics" and 
" Formulae " pages and in the Introductor}- Sketch. 

IV. THE ANSWERS do not profess to be exhaustive 
or authoritative : no answer to any historical question 
can possibly be either. They are mainly intended to 
form a standard of comparison with the answers worked 
out by the pupil himself; and, except where matter is 
enclosed in square brackets, they do not contain details 
which pupils of average abilit}' could not reasonably be 
expected to remember. Most of the answers are pre- 
ceded by "Jottings" such as the student is recom- 
mended to make for himself {sec Hints § 4) ; and all 
are followed by practical bibliographical notes to first- 
hand or good secondary authorities, of which some at 
least are readily accessible. 



B. Recommendations. 

The ideal would be that each pupil should 
make his own text-book ; the press of other 
subjects makes that ideal practically unattain- 
able ; it is therefore hoped that this book, and 
the series of which it forms a part, will render 
a sound compromise possible by doing a certain 
amount of mechanical work for the learner and 
teacher, and leaving- him to do the essential work 
of filling- in details according to his oivn judgment. 



In each of the Test Papers, into which they are 
grouped, there are usually some questions of tlie 
nature of "bookwork," while the remainder may 
be described as "riders" of varying difficult}'. 
The bookwork questions should be tried first, as 
the familiarity of the question will inspire the pupil 
with confidence to proceed to solve the problems 
— which require //;o«;g-/2;' rather than mere memory. 
Each test-paper is reckoned to require an hour 
for the working, but it is recommended that onl)' 
three out of the four questions be attempted. 

The teacher may profitably use these answers 
as the basis of lesson-notes — adding in his inter- 
leaved copy the illustrative matter, etc., which 
will stamp his lessons with the mark of indi- 
viduality. 

The student is warned against learning by heart 
these or any other answers. Such memorisation 
is not only immoral, but also destroys the stu- 
dent's power of tackling "unseen" questions. 

The answers to the four questions for each test- 
paper make up a separate sheet, and these can 
be supplied loose to teachers who desire to 
distribute copies to their pupils after they linve 
themsetves ivorked out tjieir own ans7vers. The 
pupil's own answers might well be bound up with 
these answers and kept for revision purposes. 



V. THE JOTTINGS represent the needful pre- 
liminary work of collecting and sorting one's ideas, 
before proceeding to write thein out. Something of 
this kind is quite as necessary in writing essays as in 
doing sums. Such jottings should be rnade in practice 
and could not do an}- harm in actual exarninations : 
many examining bodies insist on all rough work being 
shown, and the Government Departments often allow 
no "scribbling," even on blotting paper, except in the 
books provided for candidates. 



In this connection the author ventures to make 
two practical suggestions : — 

( I ) For Private Students : that they should 
compare their own "jottings" with those here 
given before working out their own answers. 

{2) For Cl.^ss Use : that teachers should 
elicit facts and ideas on the subject in hand from 
the class, sift them out, put the most relevant as 
jottings on the Black Board, and let the class 
work out some answers with these jottings before 
them. An analogous practice in composition is 
often recommended bv teachers of Literature. 



VI. THE BIBLIOGRAPHIES at the beginning of 
the book and the Bibliographical notes at the foot of 
most of the pages are not meant for the guidance 
of advanced students or specialists in History, but for 
students who are taking Histor}- as a general class 
subject. Throughout, the author has borne in mind, 
that for educational purposes, at any rate during school 
years, History is not (or should not be) an isolated sub- 
ject, but that it can and must be brought iiito the 
closest relations with Geog'raphy and Literature. 



In making a selection the author has adopted 
the principle of giving the first place to first-hand 
contemporary sources ('where accessible in a form 
suitable for school tise J ior facts, and to first-rate 
modern authorities for the interpretation of facts. 
iVIere compilations he has either relegated to a 
second place or has ignored altogether ; there 
are so many that it would be invidious to choose 
amongst them. IMany books are mentioned in 
the hope that some at least may be within the 
reach of every student. It is fatal to trust entirely 
to an}' single book in History. 



I^" Attention is called to the fact that many parts of this Book (especially the Self-Testing App.\ratus) can be 
obtained separately in Leaflet Form, either in shigle copies or in quaiitities for class use. 



INTRODUCTION, 
A Survey of European History, 1S14-1848. 

Note. — This short sketch is intended (a) to separate the essential facts of the poUtical history of 
the period from the overwhelming- mass of details necessarily gfiven in even the most elementary accounts 
of the period ; (6) to indicate, by means of marginal references, the topics that are handled at greater 
length in the Answers pages, which form the bulk of the book. 

§1. A Brief Retrospect, 1789-1814 — The French Revolution of 1789 is 
generally regarded as one of the chief landmarks in European History : indeed, Continental 
writers often treat it as the dividing line between "Modern" and "Contemporary" 
History. Beginning with an attempt to improve the internal government of France, 
French assemblies successively " limited " and "abolished" the Bourbon monarchy of 
that country, and proclaimed their willingness to help other " peoples " to establish " the 
principles of the Revolution " — Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. Naturally, this 
universal revolutionary crusade roused a general spirit of hostility among other states ; 
and from 1793 onwards, France, under her various governments, waged almost 
continual war with Great Britain, and frequent wars with most of the Continental Powers 
of Europe. In all these wars, except that against Great Britain, she was successful for 
twenty years ; but the warfare was none the less a severe strain on her resources, and 
enraged most of the European States. The long Anglo-French struggle (dating 
back to 1688) was the dominant fact in the closing years of Napoleon's career. Failing 
to persuade Europe to join him in this rivalry, he forced the Powers into his system, 
.and, because of their mutual jealousies — specially those of Austria and Prussia — he 
divided and ruled them. Russia was too vast to treat in this way ; but in 1807 the Treaty 
■of Tilsit was made between France and Russia, based on common dislike of Great Britain : 
and the " Continental System " was thereby established, which endeavoured to ruin Great 
Britain by a universal boycott of her goods. In 1808, Napoleon succeeded by trickery 
in overthrowing the Bourbon monarchy of Spain, on!}' to find himself face to face with a 
national resistance such as he had never before experienced. Aided by Great Britain, the 
" Peninsular War " became a running sore which steadily drained Napoleon's resources 
during the next five years. The Peninsular Campaigns combined with the Moscow 
Campaign of 1812, and with the Wars of Liberation in the following year, first to 
weaken and finally to ruin Napoleon. He repeatedly refused the favourable terms offered 
him by the Allied Powers ; and after they had occupied Paris in March, 1814, they 
compelled him to make an unconditional abdication. 

§ II. Preliminary Survey of the Period, 1814-1848 Thus the period 1814- 

1848 begins with the fall of Napoleon ; and it is influenced throughout by the facts and 
memories of the preceding "Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era." Throughout the 
period, the governments of Europe continually fear the rise of a similar phenomenon, 
which they believe to have sprung out of " Revolution " and "Jacobinism." These two 
names are the current terms (in the mouths of those in favour of the status quo) for two 
desires which exist, sometimes apart, sometimes together, in the minds of their opponents. 
These two desires may be named respectively "parliamentary government," as seen in 
■Great Britain, and " nationalism," or the desire to make the State inclusively and 
exclusively correspond to a " nation." Thus, there are in every country two parties. 
The one wishes, from fear of what ma)' follow even the slightest change, to maintain the 
system both in Church and in State, both internal and international, which was established 
at Vienna in 1814-5. Specially do they guard against any revolution in France. The 
other desires parliamentary government, freedom of the press, and other " liberties " : it 
also desires that " States " should be conterminous with " nations," or at least each 
" nationality " wishes not to be dominated by others. This desire leads to aspirations 
for national unity in Italy and in Germany, to separatism in Belgium and in the various 
nationalities of the Austrian Empire. The party of movement, whether " liberal " or 
" national," is generally anti-clerical. Care must be taken not to identify these parties 
with sections of society. It is not always a case of "the Kings against the Peoples." 
Some nations are sljrongly clerical, e.g., Spain : others are intensely provincial, e.g., the 
subjects of the Kings of Prussia. In some countries, e.g., Poland, the cry for " liberty " 
is raised by nobles, in order that they may still rule their peasant-tenants in the feudal 
fashion that had for the most part been discouraged by Napoleon. There are also many 
other such cross-divisions, which make it necessary to study not only the history of 
individual countries, but also the general characteristics which are more or less common 
to Europe as a whole. 

At first, all governments were " reactionary" : even Alexander of Russia was soon 
converted from his early zeal for " liberty." But in the years 1830-2, Great Britain and 



INTRODUCTION. 

France completed their gradual separation from the more " despotic " governments of 
Austria, Russia, and Prussia. Finally, in 1848, in all but Russia, the "repressive" 
system broke down for a moment, even in Austria and Prussia, and Italy revolted against 
its Austrian " despots." But the forces of revolt did not agree together, and their mutual 
rivalries worked their common destruction during the years 1849-1852. 

§ III. Reaction, 1814-1818 — in the spring of 1814, Napoleon fought a losing 
campaign in Eastern France, and was forced to abdicate. He retired to Elba, Louis XVIII. I 
was established in his stead, and the Congress of Vienna began to put Europe in 
order. Talleyrand was successfull)' restoring the diplomatic position of France, when 
Napoleon upset all calculations by returning to France and making a wild effort to 
re-establish his power. The campaign ended at Waterloo in June, 1815 ; and "the 
Hundred Days " left France in a far worse position in every way than it found her. 2 
Suspected by Europe, she was a pre)' internally to fierce part}' passions, whose effects 
were long in disappearing. Meanwhile, Ferdinand VII. was "restoring" Spain, the 
Diet of the new German Confederation was being established, and, with the support 
of Metternich, the Austrian Chancellor, the princes in Germany and Italy were succeeding, 
more or less, in bringing their " estates " back to the system of the eighteenth century. 3 
As exceptions to this general reaction, may be noted the conduct of the Duke of Weimar 
and that of Alexander of Russia, who not only gave a constitution to his kingdom of 
Poland, but was also trying to persuade Europe to accede to the Holy Alliance, and 
to base politics on the principles of the Gospel. Neither of his attempts towards 
Liberalism was successful : Poland disappointed him, and the Holy Alliance was 
gradually transformed, under Metternich's influence, into an instrument of reaction 4 
and repression. The festival at the Wartburg might betray some of the feelings 
of discontent and desire which usually remained concealed ; but, on the whole, Europe 
appeared to be generally peaceful. 

§IV. The First Struggle, 1818-1821 — when the Congress of diplomatists 
met at Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818, they could congratulate themselves on the happy 5 
inauguration of their method of governing " the United States of Europe " by congresses. 
France had now sufficiently advanced in reaction to prove herself not dangerous. The 
foreign troops were, therefore, withdrawn, and France was again admitted to the comity 
of nations. The minor matters which concerned the Congress were either satisfactorily 
settled or set aside. But no sooner had the Congress broken up than the murder of 
Kotzebue alarmed the reactionary statesmen. Conferences were held at Carlsbad and 6 
Vienna in 1819 and 1820 ; and before the German Diet could ratify the measures of 
repression there decided upon, South Europe was in a blaze. In Spain, Naples, and 7 
Portugal, military revolts broke out in 1820; in each case the rebels demanded, and 
for a time at least obtained, the establishment of the democratic constitution which 
Spain had had in 1812. In the Conferences of Troppau and Laibach, the Powers decided 8 
that Austria should " restore " Ferdinand of Naples; and, owing to the overwhelming 
military superiority of the Austrian troops, the Neapolitan reaction was easily effected. 

§V. Revolt in the Southern Peninsulas, 1821-1830: (i) Iberian.— Mean- 
while, Spain was a prey for three years to civil war, and accordingly in 1823, France, 
now completely reactionary under the influence of Artois and the " Congregation," was 
commissioned by the Congress of Verona to " restore " Ferdinand of Spain. Portugal, p 
owing to its sea-coast and its connection with Brazil and Great Britain, was allowed to 
go its own course. Canning, now rising to influence in the counsels of George IV., 10 
succeeded Castlereagh as Foreign Secretary in 1822 ; and this ministerial change marked 
a change of policy, which was doubtless partly due to differences of temperament between 
the two statesmen, but was still more due to change of circumstances. Liberalism in 
Europe was becoming more militant, and Great Britain began to stand out, at least to a 
certain extent, and in so far as her own interests were concerned, as an opponent of the 
policy of " intervention " adopted by the other Great Powers. 

(ii) Balkan. — Specially was this change apparent in the affairs of Greece. The 
aspirations of the Hellenes, long growing, had revealed themselves in 1821 in an attempt II 
on Roumania and in revolts in the Morea ; and by the summer of 1822 events had 
so developed that the Congress of Verona was concerned with Greek events as much as 
with Spanish. No common action was possible, however, because of mutual jealousies 
among the Powers. Turkey had called in Egypt to her help. Russia wished to regard 
Greek questions as her " domestic concern." Austria feared a land extension of Russia, 
while Great Britain and France in various ways feared her influence in the Mediterranean. 
Consequently, we have a long drift of diplomacy and vi^ar. Meanwhile, the Spanish 



INTRODUCTION. 

colonies in South America had shaken themselves free from the Mother Country ; and 
Georg-e Canning joined with James Monroe, President of the United States (1824) to 
protect the new " republics " from European interference. By 1827 the Greeks were in 
despair ; Egyptian troops and civil war among themselves had all but ended their power 
of resistance, and Capodistrias, who became President of Greece in this year, found an 
almost hopeless task. But European feeling was at last roused by the Turkish capture 
of Missolonghi in 1826; and though Russia and Great Britain still suspected one another, 
they agreed sufficiently to send into Greek waters a fleet which, in October 1827, 12 
won the battle of Navarino. The destruction of the Turko-Egyptian fleet changed the 
fortunes of the war in the Balkan Peninsula. Great Britain and France gradually came 
to believe in the necessity of Greek independence, and Russia was at last obliged to 
agree to this, especially as the Western Powers would not allow her to take full advantage 
of her victories in the war of 1827-9. The Treaty of Adrianople , September, 1829, 
arranged the matters in dispute between Russia and Turkey ; and after Leopold's 
renunciation of the Greek crown, and long haggling as to boundaries, Otho of Bavaria 
became king in February, 1833, ^"^^ ^^ Greek question was settled for a time. 

§VI. The Revolutions of 1830-1831 Before the Greek question had been 

settled, the West had witnessed important events which led to the first open breach of 
the Vienna reconstruction of Europe. After the accession of Charles X. in France (1824), 
the reactionary forces had, if possible, greater success than in the later years of 13 
Louis XVIII. In 1830 discontent had been increased by recent changes in the ministr}-, 
and by the evident intention of Charles to establish an absolutist constitution. The 
middle class revolted, helped by the mob of Paris, and ejecting Charles, set up his cousin 14 
Louis Philippe as King of the French. The consequences of this " Revolution of July " 
in France were many. There were temporary outbursts in parts of Germany ; the 
Reform Acts of 1832 were carried in Great Britain and Ireland ; but specially important 
were the revolts in Belgium and Poland. Belgium broke away from Holland, to 15 
which she had been tied in 181 5. The Eastern Powers were comparatively helpless 
because of the Polish revolt, and after a diplomatic tangle, owing to British fear of 
French aggression, Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, who had been momentary King of 16 
Greece, became King of the Belgians. Meanwhile, Russia suppressed the Polish rising, 
and finally ended her experiments in governing the kingdom of Poland on special lines. 

§ VII. The Period of Drift, 1831-1848 in the winter of 1831-2, Mehemet AH 

of Egypt rebelled against the Sultan of Turkey, began an easy conquest of Syria, and 
during the next year advanced into Asia Minor. His career developed the hostility 
between Russia and the Western Powers ; for whereas Great Britain and France in 1833 
mediated between the Sultan and his victorious vassal, much to the advantage of the 
latter, Russia made with Turkey the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi, which promised Russian 17 
aid in maintaining the integrity of Turkey. Nothing, however, of importance happened 
in this matter till, in 1838-9, Turkey attempted to recover Syria from Mehemet Ali, and 
was defeated at Nissib. Then Russia, Great Britain, Prussia, and Austria joined to assist 
Turkey, while France was kept out of this "concert of Europe" by her jealousy of 
British as well as of Russian influence in the East. In 1840 Mehemet Ali lost Syria, 
and was confined to his viceroyalty of Egypt. 

During these years (1830-1848) the Iberian Peninsula was distracted by civil wars : 
in Spain, Don Carlos was urging his dynastic claims against the reigning Queen, Isabella, 
with the help of clerical and reactionary forces ; and Dom Miguel was playing a similar 
game in Portugal. These Levantine and Iberian questions proved a fruitful cause of 
jealousy among the Western Powers interested in the Mediterranean ; and in 1846 this 
jealousy was exhibited in the curious diplomatic episode known as the " Spanish 18 
Marriages Question." Great Britain thought that France had outwitted her, and had 
secured a family succession in Spain, and Palmerston was resolved to be revenged. He 
found his opportunity in the question of the Sonderbund in Switzerland. The Roman 
Catholic cantons had made a separatist league for the protection of the Jesuits ; and 
France wished to have the matter brought before the Powers of Europe. Great Britain, 
however, urged the Swiss Confederate Government to speedy action ; and in 1847 the 19. 
Sonderbund was ended before Europe could intervene. These diplomatic failures con- 
tributed, along with social discontent and growing absolutism, to shake the throne of 
Louis Philippe. He and his minister Guizot fell in February, 1848. 

Meanwhile, in Central Europe there was a steady drift towards change. In 20 
Germany, though all was outwardly quiet and Metternich was apparently all powerful, 
Liberal movements were working underground, and at times gave signs of existence. 



INTRODUCTION. 

Austria-Hungary, too, was becoming discontented, especially since the death of the 
Emperor Francis and the accession of Ferdinand (1835). The " patriots " took to 
Journalism, and the nationalities of the Austrian Empire were being stirred to life. The 
Hampach festival of 1832 and the newspapers of Kossuth and Gaj showed, to those who 
could see, that changes were imminent. In 1846 Austria was glad to use the peasants 
of Galicia to suppress a rising of Polish nobles ; in the same year the accession of 
Pius IX. to the Papacy roused hopes in Italy ; and in 1847 Frederick William IV. of 
Prussia stirred the waters by the meeting and the failure of his United Diet in Berlin. 

§VIII. "Storm and Stress," 1848 — The year 1848 was marked by almost 
universal revolt. In January, Palermo broke into insurrection, and won a new 
Neapolitan constitution. The people of Schleswig-Holstein revolted against absorption 
into Denmark. In February, Louis Philippe had to flee before the mob of Paris. In 
March, North Italy, Hungary, and Bohemia revolted against Austrian rule, and even 21 
Vienna rose in insurrection, and compelled Metternich to retire from office. Germany 
began to stir in earnest, and the National Parliament met in May. From this time, 
however, the forces of reaction began to increase in power, and princes recovered from 
their first dismay. The King triumphed in Naples ; Croat and Serb began to organise 
themselves against Magyar-German ascendency. Jealousies arose among the Italians, 
and Sardinia was left almost alone to fight the national battles in North Italy ; she 
was defeated at Custozza in July by Radetzky, who captured Milan in August. Then, 22 
while Jellacic was fighting the battles of the Emperor in Croatia, and Windischgratz 
took Prag in June, and Vienna in October, the Magyars were running riot under the 
guidance of Kossuth, and stirring the enmity of neighbouring nationalities. Croatia 23 
declared war on them in September, and Trans)'lvania revolted in October. Their pride 
only rose with opposition, and in 1849 they proclaimed their independence ; but, after a 
long struggle, they were finally crushed by Austria, with the help of Russia. Meanwhile, 
the German Parliament had led Prussia into a false position in the Schleswig-Holstein 24 
question, and its members had wasted months in academic discussions as to the 
Constitution of the Germany which they fondly imagined they had called into existence. 
They ingloriousl}' disappeared in 1849. But the end was not yet. 

§ IX. A National Review, 1814-1848 — We have thus traced the story of Europe 
as a whole for thirty-four eventful years ; but while it is all important thus to preserve the 
unity, we must not forget that each country has its own history, and its own char- 
acteristics, political and national, religious and intellectual, social and enonomic. 
Germany was condemned in 1814-5 to a constitution which for many years offered a 25 
passive resistance to all change; and even the storm of 1848 failed to do more than show 
that attempts at unification and reform were as yet premature. Prussia, under her two 
Frederick Williams, was merely waiting her turn. Her government promised much but 26 
performed little, if an3'thing, in the way of constitutional change ; but she improved her 
law and administration and built up the Zollverein or Customs-Union which habituated 
Germans to Prussian leadership. Meanwhile Austria almost deserved to be called what 
her minister, Metternich, called Italy — " a geographical expression." France, Spain, and 
the minor states of the West were struggling towards constitutionalism of the British 
type. In comparison with the rest of Europe, Russia was stationary the whole period ; 27 
and Alexander steadily went backward in his treatment of Poland and of European 
Liberalism. South-eastern Europe had but one development — the establishment of Greek 
independence. Egypt under Mehemet Ali was a mere disturber of the peace : his am- 28 
bitious activities merel}- illustrated and increased Ottoman weakness and the jealousies of 
France and Great Britain in the Mediterranean. 

§ X. An International Review, 1814-1848 in order to obtain a complete 

view of any tract of General History, it must be considered not only according to periods 
and countries, but topically ; and here the natural starting-point is geography. Very little 
happened in the way of territorial changes : besides Greece, Belgium achieved her inde- 20 
pendence and Poland lost hers. Colonial questions, except in South America, were not 
of more than moderate importance. Great Britain was silently building up her second 30 
Empire. This silence was owing mainly to her predominant sea-power, which also 31 
enabled her to take part in the problems of the Eastern Question. The reason that such 
small results accrued from the endless unrest of our period was that reformers had incom- 32 
patible ideals. The " nations " wanted unity, inclusive and exclusive ; they also wanted 
Parliaments; and these two could not be attained together. At the end of our period the 
^' good time " was still only " coming." 



HINTS ON ANSWERING HISTORY QUESTIONS. 
A. Before Answering. 

1. Read the question carefulliJl, and be quite sure that you clearly understand exactly what is required 
before attempting an answer. Marks are frequently lost through sheer carelessness, such as mistaking 
" Henry IV" for " Henry VI," as well as through not clearly understanding the object of the question. 

2. Think before you write. Don't assume that a question is easy because it appears familiar, nor, on the 
other hand, that one which seems strange is necessarily difficult. A complex and apparently difficult question 
can sometimes be easily tackled if cut up into several simple ones. 

3. Thinl< out "metliod" as well as "matter." A good method will assist the writer to recall points 
otherwise forgotten, as well as tend to enhance the value of the answer in other ways. It is not only " what 
is said " but the " way in which it is said ' that attracts attention. 

4. liJahe a list of the points to be introduced into the answer, either mentally or on paper ; then endeav- 
our to arrange these points in logical order and work them up into a connected essay. 

5. Answer in the terms of the question. If asked to sketch the political career of a man, don't pour forth 
details about his babyhood unless they illustrate some point in his political career If you are asked the 
" objects" of a law, don't merely reproduce the " provisions " given in the text-book But, on the other hand, 

6. Don't be a slaue to the wording of the question. If asked, " What is the meaning of Mortmain ? ' 
you will not find it easy to continue your answer if you write down immediately, " Mortmain is — ." lUuch 
depends upon the way in which you begin your answer. 

7. Observe proportion : as a general rule give about the same amount of time and space to each question ; 
or at any rate do not spend so much time over one question that you have to scamp the rest. Remember 
that no marks are obtained for questions " unanswered for lack of time." 

8. Be especially careful in answering miscellaneous questions : — i e., questions in which you are asked 
for " notes " or " what you know " about a number of things You are not expected to set down all you know, 
and your whole answer should not be longer than your longest answer to questions dealing with one point only. 

B. While Answering. 

9. Make it quite clear which question you are answering, not only by numbering your answers carefully, 
but also by giving a catch-word at the very beginning of your answer Be particularly careful in Miscel- 
lanies : e.g. if asked, "What do you know about Pitt, Plassey, Foynings and Puritans ?" you deserve no 
marks for such an answer as this ; — " A place in India People who lived in the Tudor period," 

10. Rely upon Reason rather than Memory, whereby you will be saved from making those unfortunate 
mistakes which suggest that want of knowledge of the particular point under discussion is not your only weak 
point. 

11. Tabulate where possible, paragraph always. Illustrate freely with sketch-maps, tables and drawings, 
and take pains to arrange your answer so as to give prominence to each separate part by the use of " head- 
ings" and numerals. But, on the other hand, 

12. Remember that "Notes " are not "Answers," which should be connected, intelligible, and complete in 
themselves. "Notes" are allowable only {a) in tabular matter, (4) in filling up odd minutes at the end of 
your time, when you cannot work out a complete answer. 

13. Don't under-rate the importance of dates : insert dates when you loiow them, but remember that an 
omission is less striking than a palpable mistake If you are not sure of a date, don't guess figures which, if 
wrong, will count against you, but say or show that the event of which you are treating is before or after 
some connected event the date of which you can state with certainty An intelligent approximation is better 
than a bad shot at an exact date. 

14. Make your main points clear and prominent, and introduce details only so far as they illustrate these 
points. The essentials of a good " sketch " and a good " answer " are identical A few significant features 
grouped intelligently are preferable to " a large amount of reading photographed on a small plate." 

15. Support your conclusions by facts : don't make unsupported assertions. If asked for the character 
or policy of a man illustrate your views by his recorded actions or speeches. 

16. Be as brief as is consistent with lucidity: neither you nor the examiner have time to waste: but 
omit nothing that is essential to the clear understanding of the subject. 

C. After Answering. 

17. Read your answers before you hand them in ; harmonize your statements and dates, and remember 
that " Nonsense is never right." 

18. Re-write anything which you don't understand yourself. It is practically impossible to make clear 
to another that which is not clear to the mind of the writer. You may remember that " there is something 
about it in the book, ' but any attempt to reproduce the words of the " book " in an undigested form is not 
likely to satisfy the examiner. ^ 

19. Cut out all unnecessary adjectiues and ambiguous terms, e.g., " Catholic," " Protestant," "constitu- 
tional," "legal," "just," "good." 

20. Treat your examiner considerately and he will treat you considerately. You have to answer only one 
paper in History : he may have to read many thousand answers. Write legibly ; neither crowd nor spread 
out your writing; leave margins; avoid Ihe historic present; and don't use trite and hackneyed expressions, 
such as " Clive soon deserted the pen for the sword." 

Lindsey i. i 



THE TEACHING OF HISTORY. 
Select Questions. 

I. General. 

1. What permanent educational value can be claimed for such History as can be taught 

at school ? How far are the results to be obtained by History only ? What pro- 
portion of school time may be fairly demanded as compared with Languages, 
Mathematics, and Natural Science ? 

2. In a school for boys from 14 to 19 years of age, where, on the average, the pupils re- 

main for four years, one lesson a week of one hour, with adequate preparation, is 
assigned to History, (a) What periods would you select for teaching, and on what 
grounds ? {b) Construct a syllabus to cover four years for the use of eight forms, 
remembering that not more than a third of each form will be promoted every terra. 

3. Give a list of the maps, pictures, diagrams, and apparatus which you think ought to 

be provided in a well-furnished schoolroom. 

4. What is meant respectively by physical, commercial, mathematical, industrial, and 

historical geography ? Say which of these seems to you most important, and why. 

5. What are the advantages of " learning by heart ? " What use would you make of it 

in teaching Grammar and History, or in an infant school ? 

6. What are the advantages and disadvantages (if any) of encouraging the scholars to 

put their own questions at the end of a lesson ? 

II. Particular. 

7. What is meant by the "heuristic" method of teaching? Briefly describe its pro- 

cedure, showing how far it can be adapted to History teaching. 
8 Show by what means History can be taught in " regressive " order. 
9. State what principles would direct your choice of a text-book for pupils over and 

under 16 years of age. Criticise a few of the ordinary school text-books from your 

point of view. How far is it possible to dispense with a text-book altogether ? 
ID. What means can you suggest besides the use of a text-book for making the History 

lesson profitable to older scholars ? 

11. With elder pupils what written work would you set to be done out of school with 

the assistance of the text-book ? Show by examples the object of such work. 

12. How far may a teacher aim at being "interesting " ? Of what devices would you 

make use with this object in view ? 

13. How may visits to ancient buildings serve to illustrate lessons in English History ? 

14. Show how a teacher may assist younger pupils in learning and remembering facts. 

15. In teaching history, say what use (if any) you would make of chronological tables. 

Is it better to learn the date before or after the pupil knows something of an event, 
and becomes interested in it ? Give your reasons. 

16. Make a list of stories and biographies illustrative of English History, (a) from 1066 

to 1485, (6) from 1485 to 1837, such as you would think suitable for boys and girls 
about ten years of age. 

17. It is sometimes said that one of the best ways of teaching history is by means of 

biography. Explain this. Name five or six persons whose biography would throw 
great light on the history of the eighteenth century, and sketch one such biography. 

18. Show, by giving a short sketch case, the different points you would bring into promi- 

nence in giving a lesson on Alfred the Great to children in the lowest class and in 
the highest class of a school. 

19. In giving a lesson on the Duke of Wellington, show what use you would make of 

comparison and contrast with any other character in history. 

20. Write notes of a lesson on one of the following subjects : — 

A. For Young Pupils (30 minutes), {a) A Mediaeval Castle, (i) The Conquest 
of Wales, (c) Wolsey, {d) The Armada, {e) The Revolution of 1688, (/) The Union 
Jack, [g) a Shilling, {h) The Use of Laws. 

B. For Elder Pupils (45 minutes), (a) The British Race, (6) The Crusades, 
{c) The Hundred Years War, (rf) Elizabethan Seamen, [e) Divine Right of Kings, 
(/) The American Revolution, (g) The Expansion of England, [h) Party Govern- 
ment. 



THE TEACHING OF HISTORY. 



A Short Bibliography. 

The Teaching of History is treated in {,i) Special Books, (6) General Pedagogical Treatises, (c) Occasional Articles 
and Addresses printed mostly in educational papers For a full bibliography see— 

Sonnenschein 



(i) Fletcher, A. E. 

(2) muneoe, w. s. 

(3) Sonnenschein, W. S. 

(4) Wyer, J. I. 



Cyclopisdia of Education. [Third Edition] . Sonnenschein 7 

Si J/zoo-ra/Zy o/£rf«i;a/joH [" International Education Series"]. Arnold i< 6 

The Best Books. [D§i67]. [D section, separately, 6/- «ci] . Sonnenschein R. n<?< 31 6 
Bibliography of the Study and Teaching of History. Amer. Hist. Assoc. Ann, 

(i) Special Books, 
*^*(i) The Committee of Seven (Report, iSgg). The Study of History in Schools. Macmillan Co. net 2 o 

A recent temDerate and well-arranEed report, by scholars who are both historians and practical teachers ; treats curriculum, 
methods and cTrent practice in U. S. A., Germany, France, England and Canada. There is also a useful short bibliography. 
*(2) Barnes, Mary Sheldon. Studies in Historical Method. Heath 2 6 

By an enthusiastic teacher, who has e.'templified her methods in two books (for teachers and pupils respectively) on General 
History which are less well known on this side than they deserve to be. Bibliographies and Suggestions (1896). 

(3) Hall, G. S. (editor). Methods of Teaching History. Heath 5 o 

Mostly by American professors and dealing chiefly with University studies in America: not well arranged. 

(4) Hinsdale, B. A. Hoiv to Study and Teach History [■•Interna.tiona.l Education Series"]. Arnold 6 o 
*(5) Wells, Joseph. TheTeaehingof History inSchools. [SummeTMeeting Address, iSgz]. Uethaen o 6 

*,*(6) Withers, H. L. Teaching History in the Schools of the [London School] Board (igoi). King o 3 

(ii) General Treatises. 
(i) Collections of Essays on Educational Subjects by Various Writers. 

*(a) Barnett, p. A. Common Sense in Education. Longmans 6 o 

" An introduction to practice." Lectures at the College of Preceptors (1898) : History and Geography treated together. 
*(b) Barnett, P. A. (editor). Teaching and Organisation. 

A manual of practice for Secondary Schools. Ancient History by H. L. Withe: 

(c) CooKSON, Christopher (editor). Essays on Secondary Education 
Contains " Teaching of Modern History " by C. H. Spence and A. L. Smith. 

(d) Fitch, J. G. Lectures on Teaching [cbay. \iii]. Cambridge Press 4 6 

(e) Roberts, R. D. (editor). Education in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge Press 4 o 
Summer Meeting Extension Lectures, igoo, including " Teaching of History in England " by H. L. Withers. 

(f) Three Headmistresses. Work and Play in Girls' Schools. Longmans 7 6 
Contains suggestive papers on teaching History by Mary Hanbidge, Alice Andrews, Dorothea Beale and others. 

(2) Manuals of School Management (mainly designed for Elementary teachers) : e.g. Collar-Crook (Macmillan, 3s. 6d.), 
Flux (Nelson, is. 6d.), Garlick (Longmans, 4s. 6d.), Gladman (Jarrold, 2s. 6d.), Gunn (Nelson, 2s. 6d.), Landon (Holden, 
5s.), Salmon (Longmans, 3s. 6d.), Wilson (Nelson, 5s.). Also, " How to Teach History " (National Society, 8d.). 

(3) Teachers' Introductions to Manuals and Source-Books of History (usual in U. 8. A., apparently unknown in Eng- 
land) : e.g. Channing* T.-B. (Macmillan, 6s., 8s. 6d.), Colby S.-B. (Longmans, 6s,), Fiske T.-B. (Clarke, 6s.), Hart S.-B 
(Macmillan, 3s. 6d.), Kendall S.-B. (Macmillan, 3s. 6d. net). The History Department of Pennsylvania University and 
the New England History Teachers' Association issue pamphlets on the use of original sources in teaching History. 



Longmans 
, Modern History by R. Somervell. 
Oxford Press 



♦Barker, A. 

Beatty, F. 

Brown, W. E. 
♦Browning, O. 

Beyce, James. 
♦Charles, R. F. 

♦Charles, R. F. 
Charles, R. F. 

♦Childs, W. M. 
Davies, a. M. 
♦Evans, A. J. 



Cambridge Junior Local Syllabus 

in English History. 

Raw Materials 0/ History. 

Teaching of History. 

Teaching of History tn Schools. 

The Teaching of Civic Duty. 

Geography as the basis of History 

Teaching. 

History Teaching in Schools. 

Use of Historical Romances in 

Teaching History. 

Teaching of History, 

Study of Local History. 

Common Exam. 



(iii) Articles and Addresses. 

♦Findlay, J. J. 



E. R. Apr. 1900 
S. W. May. igoo 
J. E.Jul. 1899 
R. H. S. 1889 
C. R. Jul. 1893 

E. T. Jan. 1897 
J. E. Jun. 1895 

E. T. Nov. 1897 
S. W. Apr. igoi 
S. W., Aug. igoi 



ors : History. S. W. Jan. 

Evans, A. J. and Fearenside, C. S. A Teacher's 

Library: (i) English History. S. W, Sep. 

Fearenside, C. S. Historical Novels and their 

Uses in Teaching. S. W. Nov. 



igoo 



E. T. No 



igoo 



Teaching His- 



Frazer. N. L. 
Kellett, E. E. 
Malden, H. E. 

♦Malden, H. E. 
Malden, H. E. 



*.Seeley, J. R. 
Wilson, R, K. 
♦Withers, H. L 



E.R.Oc. Nc 
E. R. Dec. 
J. E. Mar. 



First Step! 

tory. 

The Use of Historical Fiction, 

The Teaching of Patriotism. 

Commercial History as a School 

Subject. E. T. Jun. i8g, 

Historical Examination Papers. E. T.Jul. 1899 

The Teaching of History, E. T. Jun, 189: 

ejohn, J. M. D. The Teaching of History, E. T. Jul. 1892 
, E. M. Salliee Method of Teaching 

History. 

The Teaching of History, 

Reform in History Teaching. 

The Teaching of History, 



S. W. Dec. 1899 
J. E. Nov. 1884 
C. R. Sep. 1896 
E. R. Dec. j8gg 



KEY TO INITIALS. C, R.-Contemporary Review (2/6); E. R.-(London) Educational Review (various prices) ;E. T -Educational 
Times (6d.) ; J. E.— (London) Journal of Education (6d,) ; R. H. S.— Royal Historical Society's Transactions ; S. W. School World (6d.). 
* Asterisks are prefixed to books or papers which especially combine excellence with cheapness "»* mark the best. 

Lindsey i. 3 



THE STUDY OF HISTORY. 
A Short Bibliography. 

I. The Nature of History is discussed incidentally in all sorts of places, many of whicfi can readily be found by 
reference to the Appendix to Lord Acton s Inaugural Lecture. Among set discourses on the subject may be mentioned - 
*(i) BiRRELL, Augustine. Obiter Dicta, Second Series. Stock 2 6 

Contains essay on " The Muse of History," criticising the "scientific " view of History adopted by Seeley and Mr. John Morley 
{in paper on '* Popular Culture " in Critical Miscellanies, vol. ill). ' 

(2) Blackie, J. S. What does History teach ? Macmillan 2 6 

*(3) BoLiNGBROKE, LoRD. Letters on the Study and Use of History. Ward, Lock i o 
yuotes with approval the saying that " History is Philosophy teaching by examples." 

(4) Carlyle, T. Critical and Miscellaneous Essays. 4 vols. Chapman ea. 1 o 
Vol. II contains apaper " On History," and vol. iv contains a paper " On History again." Also various reviews of historical writers. 

(5) Emerson, R. W. Essay on History. Works : Various Editions 

(6) Harrison, F. The Meaning of History. Macmillan net 8 6 
Explains and illustrates methods of historical study. Includes papers on "The Use of History," " The Connection of History," 

■' Some Great Books of History," " The History Schools," " Palaeographic Purism," and many suggestive studies in municipal 
history. 

(7) Lecky, W. E. H. The Political Value of History. [A Birmingham Address, 1892]. Arnold 2 6 

(8) Macaulay, Lord. Miscellaneous Writings. Longmans 2 6 
The essay on " History" is also printed in Bettany's edition of the Essays. There are also some general remarks on History 

at the opening of Macaulay's Essay on Hallam. 

*(9) Morrison, J. C. Art. History in Encyclopedia Britannica (gth edition), vol. xii. 

Ably traces the development of History ; distinguishes clearly between " the old or artistic type and the new or sociological 
type of History." 

(10) Powell, G. H. Excursions in Libraria. Lawrence and Bullen R. 6 o 
Includes papers on " A Melody of Memoirs," and " The Wit of History." 

*(ii) Stephen, J. F. Horae Sabbaticae. First Series. Macmillan R. 5 o 

Contains admirable appreciations of such historians as Joinville, Froissart, Commines, and Clarendon. 
{12) Stirling-Maxwell, W. Miscellaneous Essays and Addresses. Nimrao R. 21 o 

Includes paper on " Historical Style " by the learned biographer of Don John of Austria. 

II. The Study of History, mainly as a special subject for more advanced students in the upper forms of Schools and 
at the Universities. The standard work is named first, the rest being in alphabetical order. 

*»*(i) Langlois, C. V. and Seignobos, C. Introduction to the Study of History. Duckworth 7 5 

English translation by G. G. Berrv, with preface by F. Y. Powell. Arranged in three "books" : (a) Heuristic (Documents 
and Auxiliary Sciences) ; (b) Analytical Operations ; (c) Synthetic Operations. Severely criticises previous works. 

(2) AcTON, Lord. The Study of History. Macmillan 2 6 

Inaugural Address at Cambridge, 1S95 ; weighty in matter but heavy in style ; obscure but well worth re-reading till the sense 
is grasped ; good appendix of illustrative quotations. The same historian (who has read much and written little) described 
" German Schools of History " in the iirst number of the English Historical Review. 

*(3) Archbold, W. A. J. (ed.). The Teaching of History. Cambridge Press Ht-; 2 6 

Introduction by F. W. Maitland ; Teaching 0/ Ecclesiastical Historyhy H. M. Gwatkin ; Teaching 0/ Palaeography anil Diplo- 
matic by R. L. Poole ; Teaching of Ancient History by W. E. Heitland ; Teaching of Economic History by W. Cunningham ; 
Teaching of Constitntionjl History by J. R. Tanner; Teaching of History in Schools— {.i) Aims, by W. H. Woodward, {2) 
Practice, by C. H. Marten ; Teaching of History in America, by W. J. Ashley. 

(4) Arnold, Dr. T. Introductory Lectures on Modern History [1841-2]. Longmans 7 6 

Dr. Arnold practically introduced History into the curriculum of English Schools. In these University Lectures he traced the 
purpose of Providence as revealed in History; and his views may be compared with those of other writers on the Philosophy of 
History, e.g. Buckle, Bunsen, Crozier, Draper, Fairbairn, Flint, Hegel, Montesquieu, Ritchie, and F. von Schlegel. [See 
Sonnenschein, F. §2]. e. 1 s l 

(5) Bernheim, E. Leh'rbucli der Historischen Methode. Leipzig 12 o 
Classified summary of ideas in methodology down to 1894. 

(6) Brewer, J. S. English Studies \e6.. 'R.Wkc-e']. Murray o.p. 14 o 

Study of History, Study of English History, and New Sources of English History ; also review of Green's Short History. 

(7) Droysen, J. G. Outlines of tlie Principles of History [translated by E. B. Andrews]. Arnold 4 6 
Praised by Bernheim ; condemned by Langlois and Seignobos. 

(8) Freeman, E. A. Metlwds of Historical Study. Macmillan 10 6 
Strikes learned persons as "empty and commonplace" ; useful to beginners. 

(g) Frodde, J.A. Sfiort Studies on Great Subjects, Series i a,nd ii. Longmans. ea. 3 6 

" Science of History " in First Series ; " Scientific Method applied to History " in Second Series. 
*(io) Seeley, J. R, Introduction to Political Science. Macmillan 5 o 

Regards History as mainly usefiil in providing materials for Political Science. 

(11) Smith, Goldwin. Lectures on the Study of History [iS^g-iSGi] . Parker o.p. 3 6 

Oxford Lectures, like those entered under (4) and (12) : may profitably be compared with one another and with the Cambridge 
Lectures entered under (2) and (10). 

*»*(i2) Stubbs, W. Lectures on Medieval and Modern History. Oxford Press 8 6 

A book both readable and valuable, containing 19 lectures and addresses delivered mainly while the author was Regius Pro- 
fessor of Modern History at Oxford (1867-1884). Lect. i, Inaugural ; Lect. ii, iii, deal with " Present State and Prospects of 
Historical Study " (i8;6) ; Lect. iv, v, with " Purposes and Methods of Historical Study " Lect. xviii. Review of Recent Work in 
History (1884). 

Lindsey i. 4 



BIBLIOGRAPHY : EUROPEAN HISTORY. 

Special Period, 1814-1848 (1). 

I. Manuals of General History : The following- maybe selected from the many publications of the kind as 
g-iving a g-ood outline for preliminary reading- and as showing the place of the special period in World History. 

(i) Text-Books: the first is mainly a facf-book, the second an idea-book, the third a guide-book (giving good maps 
and pictures, and showing- where to go for further information), and the fourth an education-book. 

Freeman, E. A. General Sketch of European History, [pp. 448 : 28 IVIaps]. Macmillan 3 6 

Concise, but difficult reading ; full index ; good chronological table ; no bibliog-raphies. 
Lavisse, E, (tr. C. Gross) General View of the Political History of Europe Longmans, N.Y. $1 25 

Suggestive: few facts but many good ideas. Essential for the teacher. The French original is cheaper (Colin 3 fr. 50c.). 
Ad.ams, G. B. European Histor)! : An Outline of its Development, [pp.605: 135 111.]. Macmillan net 6 6 

By the Professor in History at "V'ale University. A compromise between the full text-book fashionable in England and a 
bare chronological summary. Contains sound guidance, arranged in practical form, for further reading in the best books. 

Barnes, M. Sheldon Studies in General History. B.C. 1000-1S80 a.d., 2 vols. Heath 9 6 

" An application of the L.aboratory Method to the Study of History." "The Teacher's Manual" (3/6) will be found useful 
by all teachers, whatever the method adopted : the " Student's Manual " (6,'-) contains maps, pictures and well-chosen extracts 
from "sources," and is almost unique .among Instorical manuals in being interesting without being untrue, and in being thought- 
stinud.atlng without being above the heads of young readers. 

(ii) Reference-Books: including^ an atlas, a date-book, and a biog^raphical dictionary (ranged in order of importance). 
PuTZGER, F. W. Historischer Schul Atlas. [68 maps : 71 inset plans]. Velhagen 2 g 

"Very well selected and executed ; but names in German and no index. 
Ploetz, Carl (tr. W. Tillingh.ast). Epitotne of History, Ancient, Mediceval, Modern. Blackie 7 6 

Full and accurate; arranged b>- periods, each sub-divided according to countries, and therefore not supplying a synoptic view of events. 

Hole, Charles Brief Biographical Dictionary. Macmillan 4 6 

There are also larger works, in most good libraries, by Cates, Chambers, Cooper, Thomas, \-inccnt. 

H. Special Period JVlanuals : may be divided into text-books and books of reference. 

(i) General Text-Books: arranged in order of length of period handled. Ceteris paribus. Lodge is the most useful 
book to those who require or can afford only a srnall good library ; next come Rose and Fj'ffe ; Phillips is the most 
detailed of one-volume manuals ; the most readable books — dwelling on general aspects rather than abounding in 
names — are Andrews and Seignobos. 

Lodge, Rich.\RD Modern Europe, 1453- 1878, [pp.809: no maps]. Murray 7 6 

Standard text-book, by the Professor of History at Edinburgh University. Not " interesting " but well-arranged and trust- 
worthy: good index and chronological table. _ The only serious fault in the book is the absence of bibliographies. Tlie period 
1814-1848 occupies parts of chapter xxiv.-xxvi . pp. 625-70^. 

Sears, E. H. Outline of Political Groivtli in the Nineteenth Century, [pp.629]. Macmillan net 12 6 

Treats each country separately, from 1789 till about 1899, in an ingenious and suggestive way. Good select bibliograpln". 
Rather a pamphlet in favour of Democracy than a historical treatise. 

Rose, J. H. A Century of Continental History, i-]9o-i8Bo. [pp. 420 : 8 maps and plans]. Stanford 6 

By an experienced University Extension lecturer, whose later book on " The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era " (Cambridge 
Press, 6/-), has been very highly praised, even in France. Good outline: no bibliography. 

FvFFE, C. A. History of Modern Europe, 1792-1878. [pp 1,112: 2 Maps]. Cassell 10 6 

Standard Work, by an Oxford history tutor. Also sold in three volumes at 7,6 each, the second volume covering cxacll\- 
the period extending from the Bourbon restoration to the fall of the July Monarchy, March 1848. No bibliograpliies. 

Phillips, W. A. Modern Europe, l&\y\?^. [pp. 58S : 4 maps]. Riving-lons net 6 o 

B\- an Oxford student of history. Begins after the battle of Waterloo, and bisects approximately at 1848 ; topieo-cliionological 
in arrangement. There is a short bibliographv not confined to Englisli liooks : and the lour excellent maps deal respecli\eh- 
with the n.ationalities in Austri.a-Hungary. the Unification of Italy. Europe in 1875, and the l!:ilkan IVninsula, 1878. 

Andrews, C. M. Historical Development of Modern Europe, 1815-1897. [pp. 956 : 3 maps]. Putnam 12 6 

By an Associate Professor in History at Bryn Mawr College. This " Student's Edition " consists of tlie original two volumes 
printed on thin but good paper and bound up together with separate indexes. The first volume (ohtain.'iblc separateK at i - b) 
deals with the period 1815-1850, and includes a necessity which all the other manuals on the period lack— viz., a good introduction. 
The book is well-arranged and clearly written : it is rather a conimentar\ than a narrative ; .ind tliough il is longer th;ni F\n-e or 
Phillips, it is more truly an " outline:" 

Sfacnobos, Charles A Political History of Contemporary Europe, \8li^-l8g6. 2voIs. [pp.907]. Heincmann net 20 o 
By a Professor in the University of Paris. The original occupies but one volume and is much cheaper, hut has no iiuiex. 
(Colin, i2fr, paper, j6fr. bound). Covers the period in three ways: first, country by country (ch. ii.-xxi.), then deals with general 
social movements (ch. xxii.-xxiv.), and finally with international relations in five periods (ch, xx%'.-xx\iii.). 

(ii) Books of Reference: two atlases, and three chronologies. 

RoTiiERT, Ent-ARD Karten und Sliiszen aus der Geschiciite, \o\s. W . \ . (iogetbcr) Bagel 7mks. ^opf. 

Vol. IV. contains 34 maps illustrating German History, 1782-1870 (^mks, jopf): vol. V. contains 20 maps illustrating non- 
German history, 1553-1898, including six on 1814-1848 (4mks. jopf ). 

ScilRADER, Franz Atlas de Geographie Historique, vol. V. Hachette 7l''r. o 

The complete atlas (35 fr.) contains 55 large and many small maps, descriptive text and index. 
GOOCH, G. P. (Preface by Lord Acton) Annals of Politics and Culture, i^g2-\8(}C,. Camb. Press net -j 6 

A scholarly compendiiun showing contemporary events in Politics and in Culture (including Literature) 011 facing pages. Fairlj- 
full classified bibliography ; elaborate index. 

Hassall, Arthur Handbook of European History, i^oo-iS-ji. Macmillan net 8 6 

MORISON, M. Time-Table of European History, t^oo-iS-jQ. Constable net 12 6 

Date-books showing the events in different connlrics in par.-illel columns. The former Is the handier, the latter is the more useful, 

Liiadsey. C.N.B. 5 2 



BIBLIOGRAPHY: EUROPEAN HISTORY. 

Special Period, i8i4'i848 (2). 

III. Larger Works and Special Subjects: For principal foreign works, see Gooch, Phillips, Seignobos, etc. 
Alison, Sir Archibald History of Europe, i']B<j-^?i$2. 21 vols. Blackwood £,^ 5 o 

This is the fullest work in English, and still remains the best available Eng-lish book on a large scale. The publishers also issue 
an epitome (7/6) and an illustrative atlas (31/6), 
Freeman, E. A. Historical Geography of Europe. 2 vols. Longmans, 0. p. 37 6 

First volume contains text, explaining clearly the changes in the political map of Europe from the earliest times : second 
Aohnne contains sixtv-fi\c illustrative sketch I'naps. The work is valuable for changes ot frontier, but says little about the 
influenceof geogr.iphy on history: for which see H. B. George, Relntioitsof Geogrnjihy nitd History (O^iord. Press. 4/6). 

Four Oxford Lectures (ifiSS). Macmillan ^ o 

Two of these deal with " Fifty Years of European History" (1837-1887). Some suggestive general remarks on European 
history will be found in the authors Chief Periods of Eurol>ean MVoj-j' (Macmillan, 10,6), and Practical Bearings of European 
///i/0O'(Paul, 8 6). 
Callwell, C. E. The Effect of Maritime Command on Land Campaigns since Waterloo. Blackwood net 6 o 

Maurice, C. E. The Revolutimiarv Movement of i%Ji,?,-c)in Italy, Austria-Hungary , and Germany. Bell, R. 16 o 

" With some examination of the pre\ious thirty-three years " ; also list of dates and authorities. Standard work. 
Lowell, A. L. Governments and Parties in Modem Europe. 2 vols. Longmans 21 o 

LlEBER, Francls Civil Liberty and Setf-Govern?nent. Lippineott $3 50 

May, Sir T. Erskine (Lord Farnborough) Democracy in Europe. 2 vols. Longmans 32 o 

Ancient and Mediasval history' treated very briefly : most of the book is devoted to growth of democracy in modern times, 
especi.ally in Western Europe. 
Dicey, A. V. The Laif of the Constitution. Macmillan 1 2 6 

Chiefly valuable to students of this period as distinguishing clearly between British and foreign conceptions of "consti- 
tutionalism," and for its appendix on twelve French constitutions since 1789. 

Omond, T. S. The Romantic Triumph. [" Periods of Etiropean Literature "]. Blackwood net 5 o 

Forming volume XI. in Prof. S.aintsbury's twelve-volume History of European Literature. 

Brandes, George Main Currents in Nineteenth Century Literature. [To 1848]. 6 vols. Heinemann ciy., yiet (s o 
Vol. I., Emigrant (Eniigrr) Literature ; vol. II., The Romantic School in Germany ; vol. HI., The Reaction in France : vol. IV., 
N.aturalism in England : vol. \"., The Romantic School in France : vol. VI., Voung'Germany, Inviiluable. 

IV. Individual Countries: Besides articles in cyclopaedias (e.g.. Encyclopedia Britannica and Chambers' 

.£'«ri'r/(>y!><?'(-/A/), and man}' volumes published or announced in such series as ''Victorian Era Series " (Blackie, 
2,'6 each), "Nineteenth Century Series" (Chambers, 5/- each), ".Story of the Nations " (Unwin, 5/- each), 
" Cambridge Historical Series " (Camb. Press, usually 6/- each). 

(i) France : no good text-book in English. Best are G. B. Adams, Growth of the French Nation (Macmillan 6/-), 
Hassall-Jervis, Student's History {Murray, Ti6), and ] AMES WHITE, History of France (Biackv/ood, 6/-). The best 
large history in French is Martin (1789-1878, 8 vols.) ; and there are many party treatises on the period, e.g., by Louis 
Blanc, Guizot, Lady C. Jackson, Lemaitre, Macdonnell, Lord Normanby, H. Reeve, Thiers. 
Ad.\MS, C. K. Democracy and Monarc/iy in Modern France. 

BODLEY, J. E. C. France since the Revolution. [Best bookj. 

COUBERTIN, Baron Pierre iik France since 1814, [Briglit : well translated[ 

Dickinson, G. L. Revolution and Reaction in Modern France. 

University Extension Lectures, commenting thoughtfully and suggestively on the course of ev 
Bourhon Re\olution ; chap. !v. with the Monarchy of July'; chap. v. with the Revolution of 1848 

(ii.) Germany: No good text-book in English, but Austria, Bohemia and Hungary have been fairly well treated 
the "Story of the Nations Series" (Unwin, 5/- each). 

Bigelow, Poultnev The German Struggle for Liberty. [/.?., Liberation]. 2 vols. Harper 21 

Brvce, James The Holy Roman Empire. Macmillan 7 

One of the most interesting and stimulating books on history ever written. The supplementary chapter deals brieflv with the 
history of Germany from the fall of the Holy Romin to the establishment of the German Empire. i8^6-i87i. 
Leger, Louis (tr. Mrs. Birkbeck Hill) History of A ustro- Hungary Rivingtons 10 

Muller, W. Political History of Recent Times, i8i'6-i8ys- [Mainly Germany]. Harper $2 

St!Eley, Sir John R. Life and Times of Stein. [1759-1830]. 3 vols. Camb. Press, R. 30 

The taost important description of the reforms which mrade possible the present greatness of Prussia. 

(iii) Great Britain: See J. S. Lindsey, Problems and Exercises in English History. Book G. pp. 17-19. 
(iv) Italy: besides the writings of Mazzini. 

Cesaresso, Countess Martinengo The Liberation of Italy. [" Events of our Time ' 

King, J. Bolton History of Italian Unity. [Best]. 2 vols. 

Probyn, j. W. Italy, 1815-1890. (Revised and Extended Edition). 

Thayer, W. R. Daivn of Italian Independence. 2 vols. 

Stillman, W. j. The Vnion of Italy, 1815-1890. ["Camb. Hist. Series"] 

tv) Russia : Besides the popular histories of Poland and Russia by W. R. MorfiU, in the " Story of the Nations." 

Rambaud, Alfred (translated) History of Russia. 3 vols. Low 21 o 

(vi) Spain and Portugal : the best general histories are : M. A. S. Hume, The Spanish People (Heinemann, 6/-) 
Modern Spain, 1788-1898 (Unwin, 5/-), and H. M. Stephens, Portugal {Unw'm, 5/-).^ 
(vii) Switzerland: there are several small books which are poor; the standard work is by C. Dandliker (translated) 

Adams, Sir F. O. and Cunningham, C. D. The S-mss Confederation. Macmillan 14 o 

(viii) Turkey and the Balkan Peninsula: the volumes by S. Lane-Poole ("Tuj-key" and " Barbary Corsairs,") are 
good, that by W. Miller (" The Balkans") in the "Story of the Nations" (Unwin, 5/-) is fairly good. 

FiNLAY, George History of Greece, vols. VI., \TI. Camb. Press each 10 o 

MiNCHIN, J. Ci. Gro-Mh of Freedom in in the Balkan Peninsula. Murray 10 6 

Phillips, W. .A-LISON The War of Greelt'Independence, \'&z\-\8z7s- Smith, Elder 12 6 

Lindsey. C.N.B, 6 



Holt, N. Y. 
Macmillan 




$2 5° 

net 10 


Chapman 
Geo. Allen 
:hap. iii. deals \ 


vith 


6 

3 6 
the 



Seeley 
Nisbet 


5 
net 24 


Cassell 


3 


Gay and Bird 
Camb. Press 


16 
6 



BIBLIOGRAPHY: SPECIAL PERIOD. 



European History, i8i4'i848: (3) Historical Fiction. 

Note.— This list is not exhaustive, nor is it based on personal knowledgfe of all the books mentioned. 1 he stories 
best worth reading-, as a rule, are those contemporary with the period handled : these are in most cases distinguished 
by prefixing^ the date of publication. 



I 



The British at Home and Abroad. 
(i) The Peninsular War. 



J. Grant 



Maxwell 
G. A. Hentv 



C. Lever 
Blackmore 



The King's 0"ii<ii Borderers. 

The Romance of War. 

The Bivouac. 

The Young Buglers. 

Under Wellington's Conunaiid. 

Charles O'Mallev (and Waterloo). 

Alice Lorraine (South Downs), 
(ii) AnglO'American War of 1812. 
Michael Scott Tom Cringle's Ztg- (also West Indies). 
G. R. Gieig- The Subaltern (British). 

Bynner Zachary Phips. 

Seawell Midsliipman Paulding. 

G. C. Eg-g-leston Signal Boy, Captain Sam, Big Brother 

The Waterloo Campaign. 
J'anity Fair (Waterloo episode). 
The Great Shado-tK 
The Shadow of llie Snvord. 
One of the zSth. 
Aims and Obstacles. 
Stories of Waterloo. 



Thackeraj' 
Conan Doyle 
R. Buchanan 
G. A. Henty 
G. P. R. James 
\\'. H. Maxwell 



(iv) After the Great War. 
Sidney Pickering Verity (1815). 
R. L. Steven.son St. Ives (French Prisoners). 
F. Adye Queen of the jj/wo;- (Dartmoor, 1815). 

Baring- Gould Cheap jack Zita (Teens 'RXsing, 1815). 
Lewis Wingfield Abigel Roive (Beau Brummel). 
George Eliot Feli.x Holt tile Radical ( 1830). 
R. M. Thomas Treivern (Wales, 1830-40). 
Arthur Morrison Cunning A/u rrell [Thumes, 1850). 

(v) Ireland. 
W. Carlelon The Black Prophet, The Emigrants of 

Ahadarra, The Tithe Proctor, Reddy 

the Rover. 
Annie Kearv Castle Dalv{\'i>\l), Valentine McClutskv, 

H illy Reilv. 
W. O'Brien JVhen we were Boys. 

(vi) Social Effects of Industrial Revolution (besides 
Shirley and .'<ybilj. 

Through the Fray (Luddites). 

Mary Barton (1848). 

North and South { 1855). 
P. G. Hamerton Wenderholnie (Lancashire and York- 
shire). 

A Manchester Strike. 

Alton Locke, Yeast, 1851 (Chartists). 

The Revolution in Tanner's Lane. 
Charles Reade Neivr too I^ate to Mend (Prisons). 
Put Yourself in His Place[1rixAa Unions). 

(vii) Contemporary Novels of Social Life. 
i8r4 JaneAusten Mansfield Park. 

1816 Emma. 

1821 John Gait Annals of the Parish (Scotland). 

1826 Disraeli Vivian Grey. 

1841 S. Warren Ten Thousand a Year. 

1844 Dickens Martin Chuszlewit. 

— Disraeli Coningsbv. 

1847 Disraeli Tancred. 

— Charlotte 1 Jane Eyre. 

1848 Bronte ) Shirley. 

— Dickens Dombey and Son. 

— Disraeli Sybil. 

1849 L\'tton The Caxtons. 

— Thackeray Pendennis. 

1850 Dickens David Copperfield. 



G. A. Hentv 
P:. C. Gaskell 



H. Martineau 
C. Kingsle}- 
Rutherford 



L. Tolstoy 
Rellstab 
C. M. Yonge 
Chas. Lever 
G. A. Hentv 
De Wilt 



II Continental Peoples. 
(i) Invasion of Russia. 

IJ'ar and Peace. 

Polish Lancers. 

Kenneth. 

Tom Burke of Ours. 

Through Russian Snows. 

Throiiglt the Snowdrifts. 



(ii) War of Liberation and Invasion of France. 
Fritz Renter Ln the Year 1813. 

Erckmann- ( The Conscript {181 2), Madame Theresi 

Chatrian ( The Great Lnvasion (1814). 
O. \'. Caine Face to Face with Napoleon. 

(iii) The Hundred Days. 
Erckmann-Chatrian Waterloo. 



\'. Caine 
Hartmanii 



(IV) 



In the Year of Waterloo. 

The Last Days of a King (Murat). 

Europe after the Great War. 
Les Miscrables (France) (pub. 1862). 
The Green Book (Russia). 
Helen and Olga (Russia), 
i Black and Go/rf (Circassian War). 
The Wayside Cross (Carlist Wars, 1833 



V. Hugo 

M. Jokai 

Manning 

Patten Sander 

E. A. Milman 

H. S. Merriman Jn Kedar's Tents; Thel'elvet Glove( Ditto). 

S.R.Crockett 7he Firebrand (Ditto). 

TheSilverSkull(Yi:\ch2ird Church in Apulia). 

G. A. Henty In Greek Waters (^82l-^) \ (Greek War of 
E. F.Benson TheVintage; TlieCapsiiia I Independence) 
Byron Poems, eso. Childe Harold. 

(v) Outside Europe, 
Rider Haggard 5?iw//<)7t' (Great Trek, 1837). 
Marcus Clarke /^o/- the Term of His Natural Life (Con- 
victs in Tasmania). ['823) 

On the I rrawaddy (First Burmese War, 
'I'o Herat and Kabul ( (Retreat from 
War and Peace ) Kabul, 1842). 

Through the Sikh War. 
John Charity (Hants and California). 
'Uncle Tour's Cabin (Slavery, U.S.A.). 
- Llanero (Venezuela). 
7«f the Dauntless (Chile). 
A Sea-King's Midsliipman (Cochrane). 



G. A. Henty 

A. L. O. E. 

G. A. Hentv 

H. A. \'achel 

H. B. Stowe 

W.H.Kingston The Yi 

G. A. Henty With Cochr 

A. L. Knight 



(vi) Revolution of 1848. 
Freytag Debit and Credit (Silesia). 

Spielhagen Throuirk Night to Light (Silesia). 

Manning Interrupted l/'.vW/^i'- (Hungary ). 

Roberts Mademoiselle y1/«/-/ (Rome). 

Vo\'nich The Gadfly. 

Erckmann-Chatrian Man of the People (Paris). 
J. F. Cobb Workman and Soldier (Pai-'is). 

M. E. Braddon A-/; woe/ (Paris). 

(vii) Contemporary Novels of Social Life. 
1831 Stendhal L^e Rouge et le Noir (France). 

1835 C.de Bernard L'Anneau d' Argent (France). 

1838 /,<- C<'^/;rH/( France). [1815-30). 

1839 Stendhal La Chartreuse de Panne (Italy, 

1841 Sandeau Le Docteiir Kerbeau. 

1842 George Sand Consuelo (Venice and Bohemia). 
1845 Murger La Vie de Boheme (Latin Quarter). 
Sandeau Catherine. 

1848 George Sand Le Meunier d Angibault (Socialism). 
1851 .-^andeau Sacs el Parcheinins {Pnv'i^, 1848). 

1839-45 Balzac ConiMie Humnine {Senes of Novels). 



Lindsey. C.N.B, 



FORMULAE FOR HISTORY QUESTIONS. 



Note. — These ' formulae," extracted from various examination papers, are meant to be applied to the 
" Notable Topics" displayed on the facing page. They are suitable eiUier for self-testing by the private student or 
for class use. They are mostly adapted for memory tests, but they can also be used as intelligence tests — i.e., to find 
out whether the subject matter of the text-book and lessons has been understood as well as remembered. [Variants 
are inserted in square brackets] . 

I. General. 

Relating to Persons, Places, Events, Things and Terms. 

1. What do you know of., 

2. Give some account of 

3. When, Where, How, Why, With what result did 



Not ^ood for written work but useful for oral questioning in order to elicit facts 
which may then be woven into a connected treatment of some related " problem." 



II. Persons. 



Trace the descent from of 

Show the claims of to 

When and on what grounds did claim... 

Explain exactly the title of to 

Compare the claims of and to 

State the causes of the deposition of 

What difficulties had ? How did he 

[she] overcome them ? 

What various causes tended to make 

popular [unpopular] ? 

What were the chief causes of the failure and 

fall of ? 

What was the influence of on the political 

and social life of England in his [her or 
their] day ? 

Who were 's chief advisers during 

? What was the policy of each in 

respect to ? 

Describe the character and policy of 

Explain [Criticise, Discuss] the 

policy of 

Describe the foreign [domestic] policy of 

Sketch the political career of 

Give reasons for regarding as a great 

statesman [general, legislator ] 

Write a short account of the career of 

from to and explain why 

Give a brief account of and mention 

other great in the reign of 

Write a short life [with dates] of with 

special reference to [explaining] 

State briefly the connexion of with the 

history of 

Write a life of and explain his attitude 

towards 

Point out the objects of 

Describe the attempts made by to 

Why, and in what way did ? 

What part did play in ? 

What important changes in were 

effected by ? 

State the successii'e steps by which 

Enumerate the chief acts of which 

led to 

Give an account of the relations between 

and 

What were the chief points in dispute be- 
tween ? 

Describe and discuss the treatment of 

Examine the charges brought against 

Give an account of the trial of 

On what charges were executed? 

What different views were taken by 

as to ? 

Why has been called " " ? 

What claims to distinction has as ? 

On what deeds does the fame of chiefly 

rest ? 

With what great measures or events in 

[English] history do you connect ? 

Whom do you consider to be the greatest 

during this period ? Give reasons. 



III. Places. 

Where are and what is their his-' 

torical importance ? 

In what parts of the world was the 

struggle between and carried on? 

What were the [English] possessions 



.at. 



a g 
= ■?, 



4. What parts of were marked by 

rebellions [fighting, commercial devel- 
opment] during this period ? 

5. Name (with dates) the principal towns, 
[cities, ports, places of trade, fortresses, 
seats of learning, monasteries, manufac- 
turing towns] in 

6. Describe the principal [ci\il, ecclesias- 
tical] divisions [boundaries] of / 

Draw a rough map of to illustrate 

7. The principal battles [sieges, campaigns, re- 
bellions, theatres of war] during this period. 

8. The principal voyages cf discovery, 

[trade routes, settlements] 

g. The variations of frontier between 

and 

to. The political [civil, ecclesiastical, economic, 
commercial, industrial, agricultural] develop- 
ments of the period. 

IV. Things. 

1. Name in order [with dates] the 

2. Enumerate [with dates and brief explana- 
tions] the (respecting ). 

3. What were the chief events in ? 

4. What were the chief characteristics of 

5. Describe the state [condition, circumstances] 
of 

6. State the objects, [causes, results] of 

7. Trace the history [development] of 

8. What events brought about ? 

9. Summarise [describe, discuss, explain] 

10. Account for 

11. Explain the grounds, and narrate the course 
of 

12. Give an account of the origin of 

13. What was the difference between and ? 

14 Compare with 

15. What was the influence on the political and 

social life of England of ? 

V. Terms. 

1. Explain [Annotate] the following expressions 
[terms] 

2. What do you understand by ? 

3. Describe briefly what is meant by 

4. Write brief notes [with dates] on 

5. Illustrate the meaning of from the 

history of the period. 

Note. — The formal definition of abstract terms is 
more suitable for grown-up persons than for quite 
young children, and this principle seems to be gener- 
ally recognised by the public examining bodies. Still 
it is clear that even the youngest children must have 
some knowledge of the meaning of technical terms of 
History, even though it be unreasonable to expect 
from them elaborate and precise scientific definitions. 



This page forms part of the Self-Testing Apparatus Leaflets. 



NOTABLE TOPICS IN EUROPEAN HISTORY, 1814— 1848. 

Explanatory Note.— These "notable topics" consist of Persons, Places, and Terms having memorable asso- 
ciations during this period of European History. Many of them are culled from papers set at various public 
examinations during- recent years : in other words, they have been hall-marked as important by educational bodies 
Avhose judgment is usually regarded with respect. 



I. 1814-1818. 



II. 1818-1821. 



A. Persons. 


B. Places. 


C. Terms. 


A. Persons. 


B. Places. 


C. Terms, 


Bliicher 


Arcis-sur-Aube 


Acte Additionnel 


Abispal 


Aix-la-Chapelle 


Absolute 


Castlereagh 


ChStillon 


Burschenschaft 


Arndt 


Barbar)' 


Congregation 


Decazes 


Elba 


Carbonari [able 


Beresford 


Cadiz 


Cortes 


Hardenberg 


Frankfort 


Chambre Introuv- 


Dessolles 


Carlsbad 


Diet 


Jahn 


Ligny 


Charta [Ouen 


Gregoire 


Laibach 


Free Powers 


Kamptz 


Orthez 


Declaration of S. 


Pepe 


Mainz 


Intervention 


Murat 


St. Helena 


Holy Alliance 


Quiroga 


Novara 


Pavilion Marsan 


Ney 


Toulouse 


Holy Office 


Sand 


Rieti 


Protocol 


Richelieu 


Wart burg 


Hundred Days 


Stourdza 


Teplitz 


Ultramontane 


Tallej'rand 


Waterloo 

TIT, 1821-1830 


White Terror 


Villele 


Trop]3au 

IV". 1830-1831 


Vienna Final Act 


A. Persons. 


B. Places. 


C. Terms. 


A. Perssns. 


B. Places. 


C, Terms, 


Ali of Janina 


Devernaki 


Freedom 


Chlopicki 


Algiers 


Abdication 


Angouleme 


Chios 


Giaour 


Constantine 


Ancona 


Barricades 


Gregorios 


Crete 


Hatti-sherif 


Lafayette 


Antwerp 


Barrier 


Hypsilanti 
Kanaris 


Janina 


Hetairia Philike 


Laffitte 


Arta-Volo 


Bourgeois 


Missolonghi 


Janissary 


JMartignac 


Brussels 


Chartre BaclCe 


Korais 


Navarino 


Klepht 


Perier 


Grochow 


Eighteen Articles 


Mehemet Ali 


Perivolakia 


Patriarch 


Polignac 


Iganie 


July Monarchy 


Metternich 


Skuleni 


Primate 


Radziwill 


Ostrolenka 


National Guard 


Miguel 


Tripolitza 


PragmaticSanction 


Thiers 


Rambouillet 


Ordinances 


Palmella 


Verona 
V. 1831-1848 


Tsarigrad 


Wellington 


Warsaw 

VI. 1848. 


Twenty-fourArt icles 


A. Persons, 


B. Places. 


C. Terms, 


A. Persons. 


B. Places. 


C, Terms. 


Blanc 


Acre 


Comitati 


Archduke John 


Curtatone 


Agrarian 


Carlos 


Aden 


Jesuit 


Batthyany 


Custozza 


German Parliament 


Gaj 
Gioberti 


Beilan 


Khalif 


Jellacic 


Eider 


Kaiserlich 


Beirout 


Koran 


Kossuth 


Heidelberg 


March Laws 


Guizot 


Damascus 


Pays Legal 


Manin 


Kremsier 


National Worksh'ps 


Ibrahim 


Ferrara 


Sonderbund 


iMole 


Palermo 


Plebiscite 


Mazzini 


Gdow 


Spanish Marriages 


Radelzky 


Pesth 


Quadrilateral 

r^ ... 


Palmerston 


Hampach 


Triune Kingdom 


Rossi 


Prag 


Socialism 


Reshid Pasha 


Krakau 


United Diet 


Schwarzenberg 


Pressburg 


Twelve Points 


St. Simon 


Nessib 


ZoUverein 


Windischgratz 


Vienna 


Young Czech 


VU. 


1814-1848 (Particular). 


VIII 


. 1814-1848 (General). 


A. Monarchs. 


B. Regions. 


C. Peoples. 


A. Families. 


B. Treaties. 


C. Party-Names 


Alexander I 


Austria 


Basque 


Augustenburg 


Adrianople 


Bonapartist 


Charles X 


Belgium 


Celt 


Bernadotte 


Akkermann 


Carlist 


Charles XIV 


Croatia 


Croat 


Bonaparte 


Chaumont 


Communist 


Charles Albert 


Dalmatia 


Czech 


Bourbon 


Ghent 


Cosmopolitan 


Charles Augustus 


England 


Dalmatian 


Braganza 


Holy Alliance 


Eider-Danish 


Charles Felix 


Galicia 


Dane 


Czartoryski 


Kiel 


lUyrist 


Christian VIII 


Ireland 


Dutch 


Guelf 


Kiutayeh 


Jacobin 


Ferdinand 


Lombardy 


Flemish 


Hapsburg 


London 


Legitimist 


Ferdinand I 


Luxemburg 


German 


Hohenzollern 


Malmoe 


Liberal 


Ferdinand VII 


Milanese 


Hellene 


Montmorency 


Miinchengratz 


Nationalist 


Francis II 


Morea 


lUyrian 


Orange 


Paris 


Orleanist 


Frederick Wm. Ill Netherlands 


Italian 


Orleans 


Paris 


Particularist 


Frederick Wm. IV Pelooonnesos 


Magyar 


Ottoman 


Petersburg 


Philhellene 


John VI 
Louis XVIII 


Piedmont 


Pole 


Radziwill 


Quadruple Alliance Radical 


Sardinia 


Roumanian 


Richelieu 


Quadruple Alliance Reactionary 


Louis Philippe 


Savoy 


Ruthenian 


Romanov 


Quadruple Alliance Republican 


Mahraoud II 


Schleswig-Holstei 


n Serb 


Russell 


Unkiar-Skelessi 


Socialist 


Nicolas I 


Thessaly 


Slav 


Savoy 


Vienna 


Tory 


Peter I 


Transylvania 


Szekler 


Weltin 


Vienna 


Ultra Royalist 


Pius IX 


Venetia 


Walloon 


Wittelsbach 


Vienna 


Young Italy 



Lindsey, C.N.B. 



This page forms p<,r/ of Ihe C.N.B Svlf-Tesling Apparalus Leaflet. 



CHRONOLOGICAL SYNOPSIS OF EUROPEAN HISTORY, 1814-1848. 

Explanatory Note.— LARGE ROMAN CAPITALS indicate accessions (the state-name being- 
added in italics) ; SMALL ROMAN CAPITALS for ministers ; dark type for battles ; italics for treaties 
and constitutional documents ; dark Upright letters for international congresses and conferences. 
B = Battle ; C = Capture ; C = Congress or Conference ; P. M. = Prime Minister ; R = Revolt or Revo- 
lution ; Rest. = Restoration ; TV. = Treaty. Column-divisions roughly follow the usual map conventions. 



West. 



Centre. 



East. 



i«i4 



1815 



1816 
1817 
1818 

1819 
1820 



1821 



1822 
1823 
1824 
1825 
1826 
1827 

1828 
1829 
1830 



1831 

1832 
1833 

1834 
1835 
1837 
1839 



1843 
1846 
1847 
1848 
Mar. 
May 
June 



Dec. 



Invasion of France (Jan.) 
Occupation of Paris (Mar.) 
LOUIS XVIII. ,7^;-. (Apr.) 
FERDINAND VII., Sp. 
Tr. Gkefit (Dec.) ... 
HUNDRED DAYS ... 
BB. Ligny, Quatre Bras 
B.Waterloo 

Chambre Introuvable (Fr.) 

CHARLES XIV. r^-vy. ... 
Quintuple A lliaiice 
Peterloo : Six Acts 
GEORGE IV., G.i5. (Jan.) 
R. Spain (Jan.) ... 
Berri murdered (Feb.) ... 
R. Portugal (Aug-.). 

Death of Napoleon (May) 

Canning vice Castlere.\gh 
Sp. Rest. Monroe Message 

Stockton-Darlington Ry. 
Const. Portugal [May) 
Canning, P.M. 
GODERICH, P.M. ... 

MIGUEL, Port. 

Polignac, Fr. minister .. 
WILLIAM IV,a5.(June) 
C. Algiers, R. Paris (July) 
LOUIS PHILIPPE, Fr. 
R. Belgium (Aug.) 

C, London 

LEOPOLD I., .ge/^. 
REFORM ACTS 
Carlist War begins (Sp.) 
Factory and Slavery Acts 
Quadruple Alliance (Apr.) 
Fieschi's Plot 
VICTORIA, G.B. 

WILLIAM II., i%//. '^. 
GuizoT vice Thiers 
Disruption in Scotland ., 
Sp. Marriages Crisis (Oct. 

R. Paris (Feb.) 

Chartist Demonstration . 

French Socialists crushed 

^President Fr. 
LOUIS NAPOLEON, 



Tr. Kiel {]din.) 

Ti: Chaumont (Mar.). 
Tr. Paris I. 
C. Vienna. 
Long Diet, Swits. 
Tr. F/'i?««« (3 Jan.) 
FERDINAND, Naples. 
HOL VALL/ANCE{Sept. ) 
Tr. Paris II. (Nov.) 
Algiers bombarded. 
Wartburgfest (Oct.). 
Constt. Bavaria, Baden. 
C. Aix-la-Chapelle (Sept.). 
C. Carlsbad 

R. Naples (July). 
C. Troppau (Oct.). 



C. Laibacli (Feb.) ... 
R. Piedmont (Mar.) 
Rest. Naples (Mar.). 

C. Verona 

LEO XII., Pope ... 
CHARLES X., Fr. 



PIUS VIII., Pope 



Constt. Germany. 

R. Rome (Feb.-May) 

GREGORY XVI., Pope 

Hampachfest 

C. Miinchengratz (Sept.) 



FERDINAND I., 
ERNEST I., Han. 



Austr. 



FRED. WILLIAM W ,Pr. 
Kossuth comm. journalist 
Sonderbiind 
PIUS IX., Pope. 
United Diet, Pr. (Feb.) ... 
R. Palermo (Jan.). 
RR. Austria-Hungary 
GERMAN PARLIAMENT 

B. Custozza (July). 

C. Milan (Aug.) 
C. Vienna (Oct.) 
FRANCISJOSEPH,^?«ifn 



Hetairia Philike founded. 



ALEXANDER, Poland. 



Kotzebue murd. (Mar.). 
Polish Diet, 1820. 



R. Roumania (Mar.). 
R. Morea (Apr.). 

Massacre Chios. 
Byron to Greece. 
Egypt conquers Crete. 
NICHOLAS I., Russia. 
Tr. Akker7nann (Oct.). 
Tr. London (July). 
B. Navarino (Oct.). 
War : Turkej' v. Russia. 
Tr. Adrianople (Sept.). 



R. Poland (Nov.). 
Polish Revolt suppressed. 
Eg3-pt invades Syria. 
B. Konieh (Dec). 
OTHO, K. Greece (Feb.). 
Tr. Unkiar-Skelessi (July). 



[MEDJID I., Turkey 
B. Nissib. ABDUL- 

Quadniple Alliance. 
Egypt loses Syria. 
Const. Greece. 

Poland absorbed. 



1814 



1815 



i8i6 
1817 



1819 
1820 



1821 



1822 
1823 
1824 
1825 
1826 
182 



1829 
1830 



1831 

1832 
1833^ 

1834I 
18351 
1837 
1839 
1840 

1843 
1846! 
1847 
1848 
Mar. 
May 



Dec. 



CONTEMPORARY SAYINGS AND COMMENTS. 
Queries: Who said it? When? Why? About what? Is it t nee ? If 7iot, why 7iot ? 

I. 1814-1818. 

The Engflish would never have deserted me — He will return in the springf — My brother, send me no 
more soldiers : I have enough — I can no longer recognise France — There will be no peace for the world 
as long as the French people exists — Le roi qiiand metiie — Plus royaliste que le I'oi — Royalise the nation 
and nationalise royalty— The Bourbons will never be strong till they mount on horseback — I have 
become a species of moral power in Germany and perhaps even in Europe — The purified morale of the 
Gospel — The Big Bursche — That is not a law but a prophecy. 

II. 1818-1821. 

I have never seen a prettier little Congress — The Dalai Lama of Vienna — A politician de semaine — 
The Upper House of Europe, whose function is to keep the Commons in order — The coryphaeus of 
Liberalism — If I lie or break my oath, hurl the thunderbolt of th}- vengeance on my head — A combination 
of Governments against Liberty. 

III. 1821-1830. 

This damned Eastern Question is like the gout, etc. — Domestic concern — Beyond the pale of civilisa- 
tion — It had with one blow destroyed the grand work of Peter the Great and all his successors — The 
S3'stera of the Tsar is but a beautiful phantom — Our remonstrance mingled with the air — False as a 
Byzantine Greek — Bag and Baggage Policy — We have created a new world to redress the balance of the 
old — The man whom Providence hurled upon England and Europe like a malevolent meteor — An 
untoward event. 

IV. 1830-1831. 

Charles X. must take care of this child's crown — I would rather hew wood than be a king- on the con- 
ditions of the King of England — The moment we give France a cabbage garden or a vine)-ard, we lose 
all our vantage [ground of principle — Let us imitate the Parisians- Long live Constantine and the 
Constitution. 

V. 1831-1848 

A drow-ning man will grasp at a serpent— From the moment that Russia and England come to an 
understanding, the peace of Asia is assured— When the sheep are dumb, the shepherd must speak — 
Austria must germanise Italy— The good Kaiser— Let us sleep upon it— All this because M. Thiers and 
M. Guizot want to be ministers at any price — A post would be good enough — France is sad : France is- 
bored — Revolt should have its own place in the State — Property is theft. 

VI. 1848. 
Rather a constitutional hell than an absolutist paradise — From the charnel house of Vienna cabinet 
a pestilential air breathes upon us, which dulls our nerves, and paralyses the flight of our spirit — 
Henceforth Prussia is merged in Germany — Long live the Republic and Saint Mark — King Bomba — A 
crown of mud and wood —Italia fara da se. 



VII. 1814-1848 (Particular). 

The French play with libertj- : it is a more serious matter when the Germans add to enthusiasm, 
perseverance — Italy is a geographical expression — We have on our hands a sick man — I deceive my- 
self if the history of Russia does not begin where the romance of Russia ends — The Turk does not count 
his enemies — It is of European importance that Germany should be united by a bond that can resist the 
demands of the moment — What is the German Fatherland ? As far as the German tongue is heard — The 
general and European discussion of these questions will be in the British Parliament. 

VIII. 1814-1848 (General). 

A lever is necessary to lift the world to the level of the cosmopolitan idea ; and this lever is to be 
found in the idea of nationality — Nationality is the first condition of humanity, as^the body is the condition 
of the soul — Nations cannot afford to be chivalrous or romantic — Apres nous le deluge — The King has no 
powers other than those formally assigned to him by the Constitution and by the laws made in accord- 
ance therewith — To swear to maintain freedom of religious opinion and equal protection for all forms of 
worship is to swear to maintain error as truth — Man shall be no longer exploited by man— Waterloo did 
more than any other battle that I know of towards the true object of all battles, the peace of the world 
— To end the Revolution the principle of Legitimacy must triumph ever)where without exception. 



Lindsey, C.N.B. 



EUROPEAN HISTORY, 1814-1848. 
Thirty-Two Questions arranged in eight " hour " Test- Papers. 
Kef. ■ PERIOD I. 1814-1818. 

No. 

1 I. Describe and account for the condition of France in the spring of 1814. 

2 2. What changes did Napoleon's Hundred Days make in the internal conditions and the inter- 

national position of France ? 

3 3. What was the extent of Metternich's influence in the years 1814 to 1818 ? 

4 4. What was the Holy Alliance ? Describe the system to which this name was afterwards applied. 

PERIOD II. 1818-1821. 

5 I. What were the various results of the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle ? 

6 2. Summarise the results, on German institutions, of the Conferences of Carlsbad and Vienna. 

7 3. Describe briefly the objects and the methods of revolt in Latin Europe in 1820. 

8 4. What were the principles of the various Powers as developed at Troppau and Laibach ? 

PERIOD III. 1821-1830. 

Why did the revolt in Portugal succeed, while those of Spain and Naples failed ? How far was 

the result owing to differences among the Powers ? 

What was the difference between the policies of Castlereagh and Canning ? How far was it 

merely apparent, being due to circumstances more than intention ? 

With what aspirations and by what methods did the Greeks struggle for independence ? What 

part did Ali Pasha of Janina and Mehemet Ali respectively play in the struggle ? 

Describe the international complications which led to the Battle of Navarino. What was the 

result of the battle ? 

PERIOD IV. 1830-1831. 

What difference, if any, did the accession of Charles X. make in the internal affairs of France ? 

What were the forces that overthrew Charles X. ? What forces set up Louis Philippe ? 

What were the causes, and what the consequences, of the Belgian revolt of 1830? 

What chances of success had the Poles in 1830? How did their rising and the Belgian revolt 

affect one another ? 

PERIOD V. 1831-1848. 

How did the career of Mehemet Ali affect the relations between Russia, Great Britain and 

France during the thirties of the nineteenth century? 

What was the question of the "Spanish marriages"? What other causes led to the fall of 

Louis Philippe ? 

Summarise the story of the Sonderbund in both its internal and its external aspects. 

Trace the growth of " Liberal" thought from 1830 to 1848. What were the principal manifestations 

thereof? 

PERIOD VI. 1848. 

21 I. How far did the Revolution of 1848 succeed (a) in the Austrian Empire, (b) in Italy, (c) in 

Germany? At what point of time did it culminate? 

22 2. What did Radetzky, WindischgrStz, and Jellacic, respectively, do towards the reaction of 1848 ? 

23 3. What were the causes (n) of the Magyar success in 1848 and (A) of the subsequent failure ? 

24 4. Account for the failure of the German Parliament and mention the chief incidents in its career. 

PERIOD VII. 1814-1848 (Particular). 

25 I. Tell the history of the German Constitution, 1814-1848. 

26 2. Trace carefully the chief events of Prussian history, 1814-1848, («) internal, (b) external. Had 

the change of sovereigns any effect ? 

27 3. Discuss the character of Alexander L, illustrating your answer from his history. 

28 4. In what ways did the Eastern Question chiefly affect European politics for the twenty years 

after the Treaty of Adrianople ? 

PERIOD VIII. 1814-1848 (General). 

29 I. What were the territorial arrangements of 1814-1815? What changes in them had taken place 

by the end of 1848 ? 

30 2. What European Powers had colonies in the years 1814- 1848? What effect did their possession 

have on European politics ? 

31 3. What illustrations does the period 1814-1848 afford of the importance of Sea Power in inter- 

national politics ? 

32 4. Distinguish between " nationalism " and "constitutional government." Why were these not 

always compatible ? 

Lindsey, C.N.B. This pnge forms part of the Self-Testing Appitratiis Leaflet. 



9 


"■ 


10 


2. 


11 


3- 


12 


4- 


13 
14 
15 
16 


4- 


17 


I. 


18 


2. 


19 
20 


4- 



FRANCE IN THE SPRING OF 1814. 

1. Question I. Describe and account for the cotidition of France in tite spring 

of 1814. 

II. Jottings. War between France and Great Britain, i793-i8i4(/'t'a«o/' ^;«zV«jr, 1802-3). Treaty of 
Tilsit, 1807, an alliance of the Emperor Napoleon, master of Western Europe, with Alexander of Russia, 
master of Eastern Europe, for the destruction, military and commercial, of Great Britain. 1808, began 
the national Spanish revolt against France, which was helped by Great Britain, and culminated in 1813-4, 
with the expulsion of France from the Peninsula. 1S12, France and Russia quarrelled, and Napoleon 
invaded and retreated from Russia. 1813, in the spring, Prussia enthusiastically, and in August, Austria, 
more cautiousl}', joined Russia against France. In October were fought the great battles round Leipzig, 
etc., and Napoleon returned to France. The Allies entered France in January, 1814, by which time 
Wellington, too, was over the Pyrenees. After a campaign in Eastern France and futile negotiations, the 
Allies entered Paris, where they found Louis XVIIL already installed by Talleyrand's statesmanship. 

III. Answer. it win be easier to reverse the order suggested in the question by 
" accounting for" the condition of France early in 1814 before trying to " describe " it. 

(i) Antecedents. We need not go further back than 1S07 for the effective ante- 
cedents of the condition of France in 1814. In 1807, Napoleon persuaded Russia at Tilsit, 
and began to compel Spain, to accept the " Continental System " which he had devised 
against Great Britain. The attempt at once roused a national resistance in Spain, which 
Great Britain supported, and soon began to chafe Russia. In 1812, Russia could bear 
the burden of the Continental System no longer, and "revolted." Napoleon invaded 
the country and, by a series of blunders, incurred the famous disaster known as the 
Retreat from Moscow. Prussia immediately took advantage of the loss of the Grand 
Army to revolt in turn against the Napoleonic yoke ; and in August, after long hesi- 
tation and diplomacy, Austria, despite her marriage connexion with Napoleon, threw in 
her lot against France. Appeal was made by Prussia and, in a far less degree, by Austria 
to German national feeling; and the result was the great campaign of the autumn of 1813, 
culminating in the fierce and continued fighting in Saxony. 

(ii) Condition in 1814. Napoleon, at length overwhelmed by force of numbers, 
retreated to the Rhine ; and in Januar}', 1814, the Allies, Russia, Prussia and Austria, 
stood on French soil. Meanwhile, Wellington had driven the French across the Pyrenees 
and had also invaded France. Napoleon fought in Eastern France a spring campaign, 
which arouses the admiration of military critics. He had the benefit of fighting on 
" interior lines," but this was more than balanced by three great disadvantages. Firstly, 
the invasion of France ruined his prestige in France ; and he had long ago said that to 
keep his position " I must remain great, glorious, admired." Secondly, he had an ex- 
aggerated disbelief in the union of the Allies. And thirdly, by leaving his garrisons in 
the fortresses of Germany, Napoleon had deprived himself of the services of many of his 
veterans; and consequently he had to fight the campaign of 1814 with newly-raised con- 
scripts. The Chatillon negotiations fell through in February, and Napoleon's eastward 
march to cut off the Allies from their base failed to stop their advance on Paris. 

When the Allies entered Paris on 31 March, they found Talleyrand already pre- 
paring to install Louis XVIII. ; and France was thus saved, for the present, from the 
disgrace of having their King, at least obviously, forced upon them from abroad. 
Napoleon would still have continued fighting, but his marshals refused to prolong what 
they regarded as a useless struggle. Napoleon was compelled to abdicate, and he was 
allowed to retire to Elba with the title of " Emperor." The then slowness of communi- 
cation, which forms an essential feature in " the condition of France " (and of all other 
countries) in 1814, is well illustrated by the fact that Wellington won his last victory 
over Soult at Toulouse without knowing that the northern war had been practically ended 
by the fall of Paris ten days before. 

IV. References. G. L. Dickinson, Revoliitiun and Reaction in Modern France, and A. Weir, 
Historical Basis of Modern Europe, are useful books for filling up or accentuating the above outline. 

(i) Text-Books (in order of length). Lodge, C. M. Andrews, p-yflfe, IWorse Stephens, Rose, Gould's 
Abridgment of AHson. Also the short books on Napoleon M' Seeley, and by W. O'Connor Morris. 

(il) Standard Works. Alison (vol. xii.) gives the fullest account ; Thiers, History of the Consulate 
and Empire (translated), Sir W. Napier, Petiinsular War (Co\hy ^ ill gives a^ capital extract) ; Poultney 
Bigelow, German Struggle for Liberty ; Seeley, Life and Times of Stein. Also Memoirs by Fouche, 
Marbot (excellent reading), and Talleyrand. W. H. Fitchett, Hoii' England Saved Europe (4 vols.) and 
Wellington's Men, may be described as " standard works " for young readers. 

(iii) Military Books. Wolseley, Decline and Fall of Napoleon ; Sir Edward Hamley, Operations of 
War ; H. Houssaye, iSj^. Many suggestive remarks will be found in the more generallj' useful books, 
T. M. Maguire, Military Geography (Cambridge Press), and especially \l. B. George, Relations of 
Geography and History (Oxford Press). 

(iv) Fiction. Erckmann-Chatrian, The Conscript (1813), The Great Invasion (France); Fritz Renter, 
In the Year iSij ; O. V. Caine, Face to Face inith Napoleon (Germany, 1813) ; Charles Lever, Tom Burke 
of Ours (Russia, etc.); Grant, Romance of War (Peninsula); Tolstoy, War and Peace (Russia, 1812) ; 
G. A. Henty, Under Wellington's Command and The Young Buglers (Peninsula), Through Russian 
Snows ( 1 8 1 2). 

C.N.B. 13 4 



THE HUNDRED DAYS. 

1. Question 2. What changes did Napoleon's Hundred Days make in the internal 

conditions and the international position of France ? 

II. Jottings, (i) Internal conditions. In April, 1814, Louis XVIII. (Bourbon) was chosen to the 
French King^ship by the Senate ; in 181 5, he came back " in the baggage " of the Allies. The peace of 
18 1 4 had released from garrison duty Napoleon's veterans. These were now in France, and might rally 
again, as in 1815. The "White Terror," and other marks of ultra-Royalism : dismissal of Fouche and 
Talleyrand, execution of Ney and others. 

{n) International position. Talleyrand's diplomacy at Vienna, 1814, restoring French prestige 
through the jealousy of the Powers, great and small. This prestige was all lost with Napoleon's 
return. The "First" Treaty of Paris had restored France to the boundaries of 1792, and had even 
added small parts of Savoy and certain positions on its northern and eastern borders. "The "Second" 
Treaty of Paris took most of these gains away. Other points of comparison between the treaties : France 
was more suspected by the Powers ; this further reacted on her internal conditions, for Louis was 
between two stools — the Powers and the French people ; a very difficult position. 

III. Answer, (l) Internal Condition of France. Napoleon's return from Elba 
changed an apparently spontaneous restoration of the Bourbons into a re-establishment 
of the old monarchy by means of foreign armies — the very circumstance against which 
France had begun fighting in 1792. The "Hundred Days" changed what might have 
been a moderate restoration into a violent party strife. They gave to Napoleon's veterans 
a taste of what might befall again if only the Emperor were ever to return. Long years 
after they gave to another Napoleon, trading on his uncle's name, more chances for his 
ambition. Though it is partly conjectural, we may attribute to the "Hundred Days" 
the events of the " White Terror " : it must have influenced some, at least, of the ferocity 
of the ultra-Royalism of the " chambre introiivable," and it certainly led to the execution 
of Ney. Incidentally, however, it transferred Naples from Murat to the Bourbons. 

(ii) International Position of France. From the international point of view, 
the " Hundred Days " directly weakened France in two ways. 

(i) Material Resources — i.e., territory and other spoils of conquest. Whereas the 
conquerors of 1814 had restored France to its boundai^ies of 1792, and had even added 
thereto parts of Savoy, etc., now in 1815 they took these away : Chambery and the rest 
of French Savoy, Landau, Saarlouis, Philippeville, etc., were ceded by France, together 
with the art treasures which she had plundered from the cities of Europe. She was also 
saddled with an army of occupation, which not only trampled on French national 
sentiment, but also cost France more than ;^2o,ooo,ooo. 

(2) Diplomatic Prestige. The greatest change effected by the "Hundred Days," 
however, was the change in the diplomatic situation. At the Congress of Vienna, before 
the news of Napoleon's return had arrived, Talleyrand had been able to obtain a general 
acceptance of the view that the Allies had been fighting, not France, but Napoleon, and 
to win a respectable position for France in the councils of Europe. He took advantage 
of Prussia's desire to absorb Saxony, and of Russia's desire to enlarge Poland, to set the 
three Eastern Powers by the ears ; and he not only made the friendship of France useful 
to each of these great Powers, but also established France as the champion of the rights 
of the smaller Powers. He had gone so far as to make a treaty between Great Britain, 
Austria, and France, January, 1815, to checkmate the designs of Prussia and Russia. 

All this was lost by Napoleon's return. France was seen to be too unstable at home to 
be trusted by the Powers. Louis XVIII. was restored, at Waterloo, by foreigners ; and 
the wits of Paris said he had been brought back by the Allies " in their baggage." 
For some years the international position and the internal condition of France played 
disastrously one on the other. Specially may this be seen when we read that Louis XVIII., 
or his minister, Richelieu, could not induce the Allies to withdraw the army of occupation 
till the country was at rest ; while he could not satisfy the opponents of his minister till 
the forces of the Allies were withdrawn. It was not till the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, 
1818, that France even began to recover from this unfortunate position into which 
Napoleon's reckless ambition had brought her in his last great gamble for power. 

IV. Remarks. Can you think of any cases in British History where dependence on foreign support 
had any marked influence on a " restoration," actual or attempted? What precisely is meant by "the 
French frontier of 1790 " and " the French frontier of 1792 " ? Has France a " natural frontier " ? If it 
has, where would )'ou place it, and why ? What art-treasures was France compelled to disgorge in 
1815? In what different parts of France were the various armies of occupation placed ? Collect sayings 
or anecdotes of men like Alexander I., Bliicher, Castlereagh, Metternich, and Wellington, illustrating their 
opinions on the proper treatment to be accorded to France before and after the " Hundred Days. " 

V. References. Ample materials for writing or amplifying this question are given in all the books 
on the period, large and small. The question is explicitly answered, from a French point of view, in 
the brilliant and suggestive essay by Baron Pierre de Coubertin, entitled " France since 1814." 

14 



METTERNICH AND THE REACTION. 

I. Question 3* what laas the extent of Mettemich'sinfinence in the years 181 4-8? 

II. Jottings. Ill Austria, it was complete from 1S09 to 1848. In Germany, the ascendency of 
Austria, i.e., of Metternich, was helped by the continuance of the Imperial idea ; and Austria also took 
the part of the smaller states against Prussia ; but in Weimar and other places in South Germany, the 
princes granted constitutions. In Russia, Metternich's influence was growing in these years. Alexander 
was not the same at Aix-la-Chapelle as he was in 1815. In Europe generally, the Quadruple Alliance 
was in accordance with Metternich's views. 

III. Answer, it is generally supposed that Metternich ruled almost absolutely 
during- the period 1814-1848, not only in Austria and throughout Germany, but also in 
the whole of Europe. In the contest between Liberalism and Reaction, a contest so long 
unfavourable to the former, Metternich seems to be the " evil genius " of Europe. With 
his fall in 1848 Europe could breathe again. Such is the popular impression. But, like 
many other such widespread views, it fails to maintain itself, when the history of day by 
day is studied. Even Metternich rose to power, had his time of culmination, and his 
gradual decline. Events in the first half of the nineteenth century were no more 
cataclysmic than at any other period of history. On the whole, Metternich's influence 
was growing, both locally and generally, during the period under review. 

(i) Austria-Hungary. In the Austrian Empire, of course, Metternich was, from 
the beginning of the period, absolute master. Metternich, who had been Chancellor of 
Austria since 1809, had set his face against Stein's policy of appealing to national feeling 
in the Wars of Liberation against Napoleon : hence, in Austria-Hungary, the Wars of 
Liberation had inspired no hopes and caused no disappointments among the various 
"nationalities" of that heterogeneous mass. During these years they had but little, if 
any, practical desire for change ; and Austria may be said to have no internal history. 

(ii) Germany. In Germany, Metternich's influence was great, but it had to be 
gaiiied. Prussia had been Austria's rival for many years, at least since the accession of 
Frederick the Great in 1740 ; and she was unwilling to allow to the modern Austrian 
Empire the powers and prestige of the old Holy Roman Empire. But the Austrian 
statesman succeeded in gaining that inheritance, and in causing men to forget the events 
of 1804 and 1806. The ruler of .\ustria was still "Emperor"; and it was convenient 
and possible for Austria to induce men, and Germans in particular, to forget that the 
title did not now mean [elective] " Roman Emperor," but onlj' [hereditary] " Emperor of 
Austria." All that " the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation " meant of old to 
Germans was now used to help maintain Austria's power, not only in Germany but in 
Italy. Prussia, unable to wrest the leadership from Austria and Metternich, proposed 
to divide with Austria the control of Germany. Metternich told the minor princes of this 
proposal, and thus won their support against the encroaching policy of Prussia. Gradually 
German affairs became practically a department of the Austrian chancery, later even of 
the Austrian police. Yet, even in Germany, Metternich was never absolutely supreme. 

(iii) Russia. With Russia, it was a question of the personal opinions of Alexander ; 
and in 1815 he was notoriously "Liberal." The process whereby Metternich won theTsar 
over to his own ideas was only beginning when the Congress of Aix met in 1818. In 
that year Alexander had opened the Polish Diet with a most optimistic speech ; but he 
had since been alarmed by plots against him, even within " Holy Russia" itself. 

(iv) General. In Spain, Naples, and France, during the years 1814-1818, events 
were going in the direction that Metternich desired, though we may not quote them as 
evidence of his direct influence. In the formation of the Quadruple Alliance of 1818, 
however, we see a practical application by him, in his own sense, of what he might regard 
as useful in the ideas of the Holy Alliance. Everywhere his agents were endeavouring, 
mostly with success, to counteract the influences emanating from the court of Alexander, 
"which," wrote Metternich, "has rendered homage to what is called the spirit of the 
times, and which, by its words, has roused the hopes of innovators and sectarians of 
every description." 

IV. References. Biographies of Metternich : (a) by C. A. Fyffe in Encyclopedia Britaiiiiica ; 
(b) by G. B. Malleson in "Statesmen Series"; (c) short study by A. Haywu-rdm Sketches of Eminent 
Statestnen and Writers, vol. I. His own Memoirs, 1773-1835, have been translated into English ; but 
these are less valuable than the notices of him in the official memoirs of such contemporaries as Canning, 
Castlereagh, and Palmerston. For the period covered by this question see the ordinary histories, large 
and small (using indexes) ; especially Seignobos, ch. xxv., "Europe underthe Metternich System," 1815-1830. 
The principal documents of the period — Charta, Holy Alliance, German Act of Confederation, Carlsbad 
Decrees, Troppau Circular — are accessible in cheap form (i/-) in the "Translations and Reprints ' 
(University of Pennsylvania) — vol. I., part iii., The Restoration and tlie European Policy of Metternich. 

15 



THE HOLY ALLIANCE. 

I. Question 4* Wkai was the Holy Alliance? Describe the system to which 

this name was afterwards applied. 

II. Jottings, Alexander's character. The Holy Alliance proposed in September, 1815 : terms and 
intention. The assent given to it various. The treaties made at Aix, November, 1818. The split in the 
Alliance, 1820. Only the three Eastern Powers adhere, and a chang:e is practically effected, not only in 
-Alexander's attitude, but in the spirit of the Alliance — International peace v. internal conservatism ; 
" nations " v. governments ; large Powers v. small Powers ; Intervention v. Non-intervention. 

Ill Answer. The "Holy Alliance" was sug-g-ested by the Tsar, Alexander L, 
and has to be hiterpreted by reference to his personal ideas. 

(i) The Original Alliance: Alexander L's Ideal. Alexander's character was 
mixed. By birth a member of the "Orthodox" Greek Church, he had learned the 
principles of Rousseau from his Swiss tutor, Laharpe, and those of Russian militarism 
from his military governor, Soltikov. He had attempted reform in Russia and failed : 
he had made alliance with Napoleon and been deceived. In September 1815, having 
become " pious " and Liberal, he proposed to his fellow-sovereigns assembled at Vertus, 
in France, a document which astonished them all — a draft of the Treaty of Holy Alliance. 
They were " to declare their intention of establishing their mutual relations on the sublime 
truths of the religion of God our Saviour, and to base their policy on principles of justice, 
charity, and peace." The Emperor of Austria, whose minister, Metternich, described it 
as " verbiage," signed it unwillingly ; the King of Prussia took it seriously ; the Prince 
Regent of Great Britain, whose minister, Castlereagh, thought it " a piece of sublime 
mysticism and nonsense," assented to it in characteristic fashion. Such was the original 
Holy Alliance and its reception in Europe. Of course, it had no practical effect on 
politics. 

(ii) The Later Alliance : Metternich's Practical Version. By 1818, however, 
Alexander was beginning to change his political opinions, and to agree in his views about 
Liberalism with Metternich. At the "Congress" of Aix-la-Chapelle, therefore, besides 
the renewal of the Quadruple Alliance of 1815, against a possibly aggressive France, 
another treaty was made, to which France was invited to adhere. It was made on 
November 15, 1818, and declared the intention of the parties not to break the intimate 
union, strengthed by the ties of Christian brotherhood, contracted by the sovereigns, 
pronounced the object of this union to be the preservation of peace on the basis of respect 
for treaties, and arranged that no partial reunions should take place concerning the affairs 
of other states without their invitation, and, if desired, their presence. 

The Holy Alliance, thus modified, entered into practical politics as a principle of 
action. But this Quintuple Alliance of 1818 was essentially different from the original 
Holy Alliance of 1815. That Holy Alliance itself was a personal association, in which 
all European sovereigns except the Pope and the Sultan were invited to join, and in 
which all those invited, except the King of Great Britain, did actually join ; and it was of 
an entirely general and religious character. The Quintuple Alliance was a diplomatic 
instrument of the ordinary type in which the religious phrases were purely incidental, 
and to which only " the Five Great Powers " were parties. 

In 1820, when Portugal, Spain, and Naples were in constitutional struggles, and it 
was proposed that the Allied Great Powers should intervene, at least in Spain, Great 
Britain and France refused to join in common action ; and it was only the three Eastern, 
or as Metternich called them, the three " free " Powers, which agreed at Troppau to carry 
out "the Concert of Europe. " The reason for the refusal of the two "limited" monarchies 
was that such intervention in purely domestic disputes was not required by the treaties 
on which the intervention was professedly based, and was in itself undesirable, and that 
the Alliance was tending to become an alliance of " Kings " against " Peoples." 

Thus, to British observers in general, the original object of the Holy Alliance was 
obscured by its later developments, in which the vague and general religious aspirations 
of the original document were overlaid by practical and monarchical considerations. 
When it was "pure" it was ineffective : when it became effective, it had become what 
Liberal historians at least have regarded as " impure " and even " unholy." 

IV. References. A full translation of the original Holy Alliance is given in J. H. Robinson, 
The Restoration and the Enmpean Policy of Metternich (" Translations and Reprints of the University of 
Pennsylvania," vol. I., Part iii) : many extracts both from the original Alliance of 1815 and from 
the later documents that grew out of it are given in all histories of the period, large and small. The 
opinions of contemporaries about it — whether responsible statesmen or poets and other writers — are 
worth collecting, with due attention to the date when the opinions were expressed. In 1823, for instance, 
Moore published a volume entitled Fables for the Holy Alliance ; and Byron makes many trenchant 
(not necessarily true) remarks on contemporary politics, especially in Childe Harold's Pilgrimage. 

16 



CONGRESS OF AACHEN. 

I. Question 5* what were the various results of the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle P 

II. Jottings. Congress held at Aachen, September-November, 1818. (a) Successful results; — The 
evacuation of France ; the renewal of the Quadruple Alliance ; the Quintuple Alliance ; the conversion 
of Alexander to Metternich's policy and the consequences thereof ; the acquirement by Austria of 
influence over the King- of Prussia, and the consequences thereof ; the settlement of disputes between 
Sweden and Denmark, and about the Baden succession question, etc. {b) Unsuccessful attempts : — 
Russo-French proposal re Spanish America ; Russo-Prussian proposal re Barbary j Great Britain's 
proposal re the Slave Trade. 

III. Answer. The Congress (or rather Conference) held at Aix-Ia-Chapelle (Aachen) 
in the autumn of 1818 was the first and the only successful attempt to carry out the idea 
of a united Europe. The business of the Congress falls into two main divisions. 

(i) Successful Proposals. On certain matters the Congress was unanimous, 
(i) France. It was decided that France was now at length restored to such a measure 
of internal stability that it was possible and desirable to complete the evacuation of the 
country, and accordingly all foreign troops were withdrawn from beyond the Rhine. 
Yet it was also felt to be necessary to maintain the Quadruple Alliance (of Austria, Great 
Britain, Prussia, and Russia), which had been formed in 1815 to prepare for any further 
outburst of French "Jacobinism." This protective treaty was accordingly renewed 
before France was admitted to join the " Four Powers " in the Quintuple Alliayice. 

(2) The Concert of Europe. Alexander's ideas of a Holy Alliance were modified by 
Austria's desire to make a practical union for the maintenance of the status quo, and by 
Great Britain's distrust of Russia's pious professions, as well as by the inability of her 
ministers to commit themselves (in view of Parliamentary opinion) to any vague policy. 
Accordingly, the Treaty of 15 November, 1818, was restricted to a general promise 
by the five contracting Powers to act together in the ordinary ways of diplomacy, and to 
intervene in the affairs of minor States only at the direct invitation of such States, and 
at conferences at which such States should be represented. Later events were to show 
how little this agreement would work in practice, and how short a time it would last. 

(3) Germany. At the Congress there were many private conferences, and Metternich 
was able in this way to win over Russia and Prussia to his views. He used certain 
recent events in Russia to influence Alexander ; and accordingly Russian agents ceased 
to communicate with secret societies in Italy and elsewhere, while Stourdza's pamphlet, 
supposed to have been instigated by Alexander, proved the existence and danger of revo- 
lutionary movements in Germany. Metternich also demonstrated successfully to the King 
of Prussia how impossible of fulfilment was his idea of a national assembly for Prussia. 
Certain minor matter were also settled by the Congress of Aix : Sweden was forced to 
behave towards Denmark (who was aiding Norwegian " rebels ") in accordance with the 
wishes of the Congress ; Hesse and Baden were commanded to treat the "mediatized" 
princes with more consideration ; and a quarrel between Bavaria and Baden concerning 
the succession to the duchy was settled in favour of the ruling duke. 

(ii) Unsuccessful Proposals. The proposals made at the Congress which were 
not adopted are as significant as those that were. 

(i) Spanish America. Russia and France proposed to help Spain to reconquer her 
American colonies ; but they were prevented by the opposition of Great Britain, whose 
trade with these countries was growing in consequence of the disappearance of the 
commercial restrictions formerly imposed by the Mother Country. 

(2) Barbary Corsairs. Russia and Prussia proposed to suppress the piracy of the 
Barbary Corsairs ; but here again the way was barred by Great Britain, fearing a Russian 
fleet in the Mediterranean. 

(3) Slave Trade. Great Britain's own proposal to suppress the Slave Trade was 
negatived by the other Powers, jealous of what Britani might do under that pretence with 
a ubiquitous fleet. 

The unsuccessful proposals show how far the Powers really were from a working 
concert. They could be expected to agree only when no private interest conflicted with 
the general interests ; and when in two or three years, another congress was attempted, 
Europe was found to be once more divided. The Powers had with difficulty agreed on 
territorial deliinitation at Vienna : they naturally fell asunder on the more abstruse 
questions oi political intervention which formed the c\n^i agenda of the later congresses. 

IV. References. The accounts of the Congress in the histories of the period, large and small, can 
readily be found with the help of the index. A good short annotated bibliography of the best books on 
the international relations of this period is given at the end of the chapter (cfi. xxv.) on " Europe under 
the Metternich System " in Seignobos, Contemporary Europe. 

C.N.B. 17 5 



CONFERENCES OF CARLSBAD AND VIENNA. 

1. Question O. Simimarise the results, 07i German iiisiitiitioiis, of the Confere?ices of 
Carlsbad and Vienna. 

II. Jottings. Constitutions of Bavaria and Baden, 1818. The murder of Kotzebue, March, 1819. 
Beginnings of Spanish revolt, July, 1819. Conference of Teplitz, August i, between Austria and Prussia, 
where the business of Carlsbad, August, was arranged. In September, the Diet carried out the resolutions 
of Carlsbad. September, 1819, Constitution granted in Wiirtemberg, and Gregoire elected to the French 
Parliament. March-May, 1820, Conference at Vienna, and its resolutions adopted by the Diet in June. 
All reactionary. 

III. Answer. (l) Antecedents. The Congress of Vienna in 1815 had given the 
German Confederation a Diet which was so constituted that it was helpless except to main- 
tain the status quo, and thus effected the purpose of Metternich, who feared the slightest 
change. German Liberalism, therefore, was driven to be " Particularist," i.e., to work 
for constitutions in single states, rather than for the unity of the German people. In 
Bavaria, Baden, and other South German states, parliamentary constitutions were granted, 
which led to much Radical talk, to the alarm of Austria. In i8ig Kotzebue, the dramatic 
poet, who was believed to have had a share in the conversion of Alexander of Russia to 
reactionary principles, was murdered by Sand, a university student ; and this event was 
used by Metternich to alarm still further the reactionary Powers. 

(ii) The Punctation of Teplitz, July, 1819. Metternich came from Italy, 
where he had been visiting Rome, and in an interview with the King of Prussia at 
Teplitz, in Bohemia, arranged the agenda for the Conference which was shortly to meet 
hard by, at Carlsbad. At Teplitz, the idea which the King of Prussia, under Hardenberg's 
influence, had long entertained of granting a constitution to Prussia, and of summoning a 
"national" parliament for the whole kingdom was finally set aside, and Austria and 
Prussia agreed to claim together to "watch over the affairs of the German Confederation," 
i.e., to regulate all German matters without consultation with, or at least in defiance of, 
the other German States. They agreed to interpret Article 13 of the Final Act of Vienna, 
1815 (which prescribed ""Estates" for each German State), in a reactionary sense. 

(iii) Conference of Carlsb.4D, August, i8ig. Accordingly, a meeting of the 
eight larger German States (the five Kingdoms, and the Duchies of Baden, Mecklenburg, 
and Nassau) was held at Carlsbad in August, i8ig. There it was agreed that no 
constitution "inconsistent with the monarchical principle" should be permitted in any 
State. All associations of German students, all gymnasia or higher public schools, were 
to be abolished ; in imiversities. Government "curators " were to watch the behaviour of 
professors and students alike, lest there should come into existence "a whole generation 
of revolutionaries " ; a censorship of the Press was determined on ; and a Commission of 
enquiry into revolutionary agitations was to sit at Mainz and report. Decrees corres- 
ponding to these resolutions mere forced through the Diet, which sat in September ; and 
these are known as the Carlsbad Decrees. 

(iv) Conference at Vienna, May, 1820. Metternich, however, had roused the 
opposition of the smaller German States by his high-handed behaviour. Russia and 
Great Britain, too, were not willing to follow him to extremes ; and when the King of 
Wiirtemberg granted again a Parliamentary Constitution in September, 1S19, he was 
supported by his cousin, Alexander, to such an extent that, when the Conference of Vienna 
met in March, 1820, Metternich was obliged to moderate his desires. The news of revolts 
in Spain and Italy, however, which arrived during the sitting of the Conference, helped 
him; and in the end the Conference agreed that, under ^& Act of Confederation, t\i% 
supreme power resided for each State in the person of the Sovereign, and that no 
constitution could be lawful which did not emanate from the Sovereign or was the result 
of armed force. If any government appealed for help, or was unable to keep order, 
intervention was allowable. All these resolutions were adopted by the German Diet in 
June, 1820, and henceforward no " liberty " existed in German States except in the South 
(where French influence had been strongest). The aristocratico-monarchical institutions 
both of Germany as a whole and of German States in particular, were crystallised till the 
great upheaval of 1848 and subsequent years, when the Carlsbad Decrees were formally 
repealed by both the old and the new assemblies at Frankfort. 

IV. References. The Carlsbad Decrees are translated in J. H. Robinson, The Restoration and the 
European Policy of Metternich (Pennsylvania University, " Translations and Reprints," vol. I., part iii.) ; 
and extracts from all the documents concerned can be easily and profitably collected from the histories, 
large and small. There are good connected accounts of German affairs during the period in Bryce, 
Holy Roman Empire, ch. xxii. ; C. M. Andrews, Historical Development of Modern Europe (vol. I., ch. vi.) ; 
and C. Seignobos, Political History of Contemporary Europe (ch. xii.). The last-named combines 
soundness, brevity, and clearness to quite an exceptional degree, and winds up with a good select 
bibliography (mainly of German books). 

18 



LATIN REVOLTS, 1820. 

I. Question 7* Describe briefly the objects and the methods of revolt in Latin 
Europe in 1820. 

II. Jottings. The Spanish Constitution of 1812 : democratic ; lacking King's initiative or consent. 
The violent reaction in Spain on the Bourbon Restoration in 1814. The revolt of the Colonies. The 
poverty of Spain. Military revolts in 1819-20. Their unsuccess, and consequent civil war. Portugal 
and Brazil. The British trade and influence. Military revolt successful. Moderate rule of Ferdinand 
in Naples. Evils thereof, specially favouritism in the Army. Consequent military revolt and adoption of 
the Spanish Constitution of 1812. Ferdinand's double policy. 

III. Answer. in 1820 revolts broke out in both " Latin " peninsulas — i.e., in the 
kingdoms of Spain, Portugal, and the Two Sicilies. 

(i) Spain. During- the war which the Spanish nation, with British help, waged 
against Napoleon from 1808 to 1814, the Cortes assembled at Cadiz framed a Constitution 
in 1812 of so democratic a character that it could never become workable. The return 
of Ferdinand, the " Idolized," to Spain in 1814, was followed by a violent reaction. 
The Inquisition was re-established ; the ultra-ecclesiastical party had it all their own 
way in Church matters ; and the King with his Camarilla was supreme in matters of State. 

The majority of the Spanish nation were well content with this, but they were 
discontented with the general condition of the country. The possession of Central and 
South America (except Brazil) had ruined the Spanish people, for the nation had learned 
to depend on the revenues thence accruing, and had failed to keep the commerce with 
their colonies, a commerce which had fallen into the hands of the Dutch and afterwards 
the British. When the Colonies fell away from Spanish control during the Napoleonic 
wars, Spain was too exhausted to enforce their return to subjection. Yet she would not 
acknowledge their independence, and continually made futile efforts to subdue them. 
The poverty of the people and the burden of taxation made the nation sullenly discontent ; 
and the miserable condition of the soldiery, coupled with the prospect of having to cross 
the Atlantic in the unseaworthy vessels sold to Spain by Russia, gave the occasion for 
military revolts. Their first attempt (in 1819) was betrayed by their leader, O'Donnell, 
Count of Abispal ; but in the following year various parts of the Army — acting without, 
or rather against, their officers — succeeded so far as to compel the King to accept the 
Constitution of 1812. An assembly accordingly met at Madrid; but it roused such 
opposition by ignoring provincial feeling, by its financial measures, and by anti- 
ecclesiastical policy, that a reaction set in, and Spain was in civil war for the next two years. 

(ii) Portugal. In Portugal the general political conditions were much the same 
as in Spain, but the dominant problem was different. The insecurity of the European 
kingdom had driven the Court to Brazil ; and the Portuguese found that the mutual 
relations of the two crown lands was becoming reversed. They were now the colony to 
a " mother country" — Brazil. Trade relations were also unfavourable to the Portuguese, 
for the British had secured most of the trade with South America, and Marshal Beresford 
was Regent in Portugal for the absent King. The Portuguese, therefore, were discontented, 
and thought they could secure political and commercial salvation by imitating their 
neighbours in Spain, and demanding a Constitution like that of Spain. A military revolt, 
beginning at Oporto in 1820, easily secured their desires. Beresford was not allowed to 
land on his return from a visit to Brazil, and the King was allowed to enter the country- 
only on assenting to the Constitution thus promulgated (1822). 

(iii) The Two Sicilies. In Naples again, there was a third set of circumstances, 
differing from the other two. Ferdinand's return from his island kingdom of Sicily 
(where he had been protected from Napoleon and Murat by the British fleet and by the 
Straits of Messina) was marked by a very moderate reaction. For the most part, 
Ferdinand maintained the system established by Murat. Yet the form of government 
was no security against injustice and favouritism. The latter was felt mostly among the 
army officers. Naples and Sicily had been separated for several years, and the King 
preferred to the higher posts those exclusively who had served with him in Sicily. The 
result was great resentment among those who had remained in Naples, and served under 
the various governments appointed by the French. Accordingly, there was a military 
revolt, and Pepe, who took the lead, proclaimed the Spanish Constitution of 1812, as the 
panacea for the evils of the country. Ferdinand swore in the most emphatic terms to 
keep the Constitution ; and for a time, all seemed to have ended well in Naples. 

IV. References. The various workings of military discontent in conjunction with Liberalism, 
imbibed from both British and French sources, deserve comparative study. For this purpose the 
various disconnected accounts given in the ordinary histories, large and small, may profitably be 
supplemented by Seignobos, Conlemporary Europe, ch. x., xi. (with select bibliographies). 

19 



CONGRESSES OF TROPPAU AND LAIBACH. 

I. Question 8. IVkai were the principles of the various Powers as developed at 
Troppau and Laibach P 

II. Jottings. A general reaction in Europe after the Carlsbad Conference, 1819. The revolts in 
Latin Europe. Russia's desire for intervention in Spain. Austria converted to intervention by the revolt 
in Naples : " domestic concern." She is forced by Russia and France to meet a Cong-ress. Aloofness 
of Great Britain. The Troppau Protocol, 1820. Its results in Naples, leading to the decision of Laibach, 
1821. The Restoration in Naples and unsuccessful attempt in Piedmont. Italy to be germanised. 
Troppau in Silesia, Laibach in Carniola (both Austrian). 

III. Answer. in 1820, thanks to the working of the compromise, effected at Aix- 
la-Chapelle in 1818, between the ideas of Metternich and those of the Holy Alliance, re- 
action was advancing all over Europe during the next few years. 

(i) Agenda of the Congresses : Naples. The events which led to the Congresses 
of Troppau and Laibach were the military revolts in Spain, Portugal, and, especially in 
Naples. Early in 1820, while Naples was still quiescent, Russia had proposed, in the 
spirit of the Holy Alliance, to intervene in Spain. But Austria, fearful of the extension 
of Russian influence, had prevented this from being carried out, and had insisted on 
the principle of non-intervention. But when Naples was disturbed, Austria feared for 
her rule in Italy, and, regarding Italian affairs as part of her " domestic concerns," 
wished to intervene alone. Great Britain was of the same mind, partly because Britain 
and Austria were old allies, partly because British interests were not involved, and 
partly because Castlereagh was opposed to any violent changes. But Russia and France 
insisted that the question was one which interested all Europe, and was therefore matter for 
a Congress. Russia was in this merely consistent with her old idea of a concert of 
Europe ; and France was jealous of any further increase of Austria's power in Italy. 

(ii) Action of the Congresses : Intervention by the Eastern Powers. 
Accordingly the Congress met at Troppau in the autumn of 1820. Britain would have 
nothing to do with it. Her ambassador was instructed only to watch events. France 
was more inclined to take part. Metternich was willing, as at the Germanic Conference 
of Vienna a few months before, to recognise constitutions if granted willingly by monarchs ; 
but as the Troppau Protocol [of 19 November] put it : — 

States which have undergone a change of government due to revolution, the results of which 
threaten other states, ipso facto cease to be members of the European Alliance, and remain excluded 
from it until their situation gives guarantees for legal order and stability. . . If, owing to such 
alterations, immediate danger threatens other states, the Powers bind themselves, by peaceful means, 
or, if need be, by arms, to bring back the guilty state into the bosom of the Great Alliance. 

Thus the principle of the Holy Alliance was for the first time applied to a concrete 
case — that of Naples. But, in thus coming into practical working, it showed, if we may 
be allowed the apparent absurdity, its impracticality ; for it was only the three Eastern 
Powers, Austria, Prussia, and Russia, that adhered to the Protocol. Great Britain 
lodged a formal protest ; France stood aloof. The revolutionists of Naples, however, 
played into the hands of their enemies. Probabl)', if their conduct had been moderate, 
Russia might have forced Austria to recognise a constitution granted by Ferdinand ; but 
the mob of Naples, by intimidating the Parliament to compel Ferdinand to swear again to 
the Constitution, and to forbid him leaving the country, made it possible for him to pose 
as an oppressed monarch at the Congress now adjourned to Laibach (1821). Metternich, 
therefore, triumphed ; Austrian troops marched into Naples, and, though badly financed, 
were able by the mistakes of their opponents to restore Ferdinand as an absolute monarch 
under the guardianship of Austria. 

While Austrian troops were marching into South Italy, the Liberals of Savoy-Pied- 
mont attempted a revolution to strike against Austria in the North. But Victor Em- 
manuel resigned the kingship of Sardinia ; his brother, Charles Albert, joined the rebels 
only to abandon them ; and the new king, Charles Felix, was able with Austrian help to 
crush the incipient rebellion at Novara. Henceforth Italy was under Austria, and 
Metternich began the plan of attempting the " germanisation " of Italy to crush the 
rising feeling of nationality. 

It has been well said that " Troppau" and " Laibach " applied the principles of the 
Carlsbad Decrees to all Europe. In all cases, Metternich represented these assemblies 
as unanimous in action against " the vast conspiracy to overthrow existing institutions." 
As a matter of fact, the Reactionaries were almost as much divided as the Revolutionists. 

IV. References. The Troppau Circular is translated in J. H. Robinson, The Restoration and the 
European Policy oy Metternich [Pennsylvania University, " Translations and Reprints," vol. I., part iii.). 
The accounts in the general histories may profitably be supplemented by those in histories of Italy, 
especially that by J. Bolton King, History of Italian Unity. 



LATIN REACTIONS, 1821-1826. 

1 . Question 9, W/ij^ did the revolt in Portugal succeed, while those of Spain and 
Naples failed P How far was the result owing to differences among the Po7oers ? 

II. Jottings. Relations between Austria and Naples, between France and Spain. Russia's 
continual wish to intervene makes her insist on Congressional methods. Necessity for both Austria and 
France to respect the opinion of the other Powers in each case. Policy of Great Britain in each case, 
indifferent in the case of Naples, interested in Spain, and still more m Portug-al. Effect of geographical 
position on the diplomatic situation. Importance of remembering that the Liberals were only one party 
in each State, not always with the sympathy of the majority of the population. 

III. Answer. The struggle for constitutional government in the three Latin 
kingdoms illustrates the contest between the idea of the Concert of Europe, of which 
Russia was the consistent champion, and the desire of Austria and France to retain in 
their own hands the settlement of the internal affairs of those countries which were 
respectively within their own " spheres of influence" (to adopt a later political phrase). 

(i) Naples. At Troppau and Laibach, Russia defeated the particularism of Austria, 
who was therefore compelled to intervene in Naples, not for her own hand, but as the 
mandatory of Europe, or rather of the three Eastern Powers who still clung to the concert. 

(ii) Spain. In 1822, the civil war in Spain had lasted long enough to draw the 
attention of Europe. Russia had already proposed, more than once, to lend her troops 
for the purpose of restoring order and "legitimate" government in that country, but 
had been checkmated by the natural jealousy of Austria and France. Now France, at 
the height of her own " reaction," was desirous of winning military glory for the Bourbon 
lilies, of restoring legitimacy in Spain, and securing the influence in that country which 
she regarded as due to the " ties of family aff'ection." But she could not venture on the 
invasion, regard being had to the possible opposition of Great Britain, without asking for 
the "moral," and even possibly the "material," support of the Eastern Powers. This 
revelation of her weakness gave to those Powers the opportunity of enforcing their will 
on France ; and, as Austria in Naples, so France in Spain was compelled to act, not 
purely for her own interest, but as representing the (maimed) "Concert of Europe." 
Austria and France, however, having in each case paid the necessary price, made short 
work of the badly-managed constitutional governments to which they were opposed. 

Great Britain was indiff'erent to Neapolitan aff'airs. Her old alliance with Austria 
led her to be friendly towards that Power, and to be willing to leave Italian affairs entirely 
in her hands. She had protested at Troppau and Laibach against the action of concerted 
Europe in that country. At Verona, she vainly protested against European intervention 
in Spain. But, when Russia proposed that, after eff'ecting a restoration in Spain through 
French arms, Europe should subdue the South American revolts. Great Britain 
could with her fleet put an absolute veto upon the proposal. At the same time, she had 
the support of the United States, whose President, James Monroe, early in 1823, sent the 
famous "message" to Congress, which may be summarised as "America for the 
Americans," and which has since become so famous as the basis of the " Monroe Doctrine." 

(iii) Portugal. In Portugal, Great Britain had all-important interests. Ever since 
the reign of Queen Anne, Portugal had been the humble ally of the only Sea Power that 
could protect her against the Bourbon Powers. By encouraging the independence of 
Brazil, and by ousting Portuguese trade from that country. Great Britain had made 
herself obnoxious to many Portuguese merchants : hence a French party had grown up 
in Portugal, represented by Dom Miguel, second son of King John VI. When in 1826 
John VI. died, his elder son, Peter, who had been " Emperor" of Brazil, renounced his 
Portuguese throne in favour of his daughter, Maria, but first granted to Portugal a 
"constitution." To this arrangement Miguel was opposed; and therefore it chanced 
that the British party was in favour of the " Constitution," while Miguel and the French 
party were absolutists. But while British statesmen cared nothing for what form of 
government should prevail in Portugal, they were determined to support Maria, and at 
first with a fleet, and afterwards, when occasion required, with an army, supported their 
allies. Thus Portugal preserved her constitutional government, while Spain and Naples 
lost theirs, mainly because the Great Powers chiefly interested were so disposed. 

Two remarks must be added. Owing to geographical position, Portugal was more 
easily defended by Britain, less easily attacked by the Eastern Powers than either Spain 
or Naples. In all three countries, as we have seen, the Liberals were but a party, in 
Spain certainly in a minority, and probably so in Naples and Portugal. 

{ IV. References. For the general question see the general histories, large and small, and biographies, 
etc., of Canning, Castlereagh, and Metternich : the European aspects of the Latin Revolts are briefly 
treated in Seignobos, Contemporary Europe, ch. xxv. For the Monroe Doctrine see (he collection of 
sources in " Old South Leaflets," No. 56, and essay by W. F. Reddaway. 

C.N.B. 21 6 



CASTLEREAGH AND CANNING. 

I. Question lO. IVhatwasthe difference between the policies of Castlereagh and 

Cannitig? How far was it merely apparent, being due to circumstances 7nore than 
intention ? 

II. Jottings. Lord Liverpool, Prime Minister, 1812-1827. Castlereagh (Londonderry), Foreign 
Secretary, 1812-1822. Canning- in the Ministry (President of the Board of Control), 1816-1820; Foreign 
Secretary, 1822-1827 ; Prime Minister, April till August, 1827. Castlereagh did not approve of the 
original Holy Alliance, 1815 (which he thought " Cromwellian " and "nonsense"), and did not agree, 
owing partly to Canning's influence, to the proposed Quintuple Alliance of 1818. He opposed the 
Carlsbad Decrees , 1819, and refused to agree (1819) to the re-establishment of the Committee of Ambassadors 
to watch French internal affairs. 

On Castlereagh's suicide in September, 1822, Canning followed his predecessor in protesting against 
intervention in Spain, 1820-1822, and against the Protocol of Troppau. Canning (with Monroe) also 
protected South America against intervention from Europe. He maintained the British party in Portugal 
against the French, but would not interfere with constitutional questions. In Greek affairs, 1822-1827, 
he was opposed to Russia, and intervened only to prevent Russia conducting by herself a probably 
successful war against Turkey. 

III. Answer. it has been usual to contrast Castlereagh and Cannhig in respect of 
both their international and their internal policy, but there are reall)' more points in 
common between them than points of difference. Castlereagh, who had come under the 
personal influence of Metternich, seems to have had a greater horror of sudden revolution 
than Canning, and certainly disapproved of the constitutional struggles of " Liberals," 
whether peaceful or violent, at home or abroad. Canning was as Tory as Castlereagh in 
reference to the British constitution ; but with respect to the internal affairs of foreign 
nations, each case that fell for his decision (South America, Portugal, and Greece) was 
complicated by circumstances that interested Great Britain in a peculiar degree. She had 
fought too long in the Peninsula against the French to regard with indifference a Bourbon 
invasion of Spain, and specially was she interested in the Spanish colonies across the 
Atlantic, with whom she now had a lucrative trade. 

Castlereagh lived while the onl}' unrest in Europe was in Spain, Portugal, and 
Naples, and to a certain extent in German}'. With these purely internal questions. Great 
Britain was not specially concerned ; and while Castlereagh sympathised with Metternich 
in his dislike of these sources of trouble, he disliked equally that " Concert of Europe " 
which Metternich was trying to create and maintain as a means of suppression by way of 
international intervention in the domestic affairs of every State. Hence Castlereagh, 
while he helped Bernadotte to suppress Norwegian opposition, disapproved both of 
Alexander's original Holy Alliance (which he called " a piece of sublime mysticism and 
nonsense"), and of its developments — specially the Carlsbad Decrees, 1819 ; and he also 
protested against the Troppau Protocol oi November, 1820, and the later proposals for 
intervention in Spain, 1820-1822. 

Canning protected the Spanish American colonies in their revolt from European 
intervention, but only because British trade with them would have been destroyed by 
their subjection to Spain ; and in this action he was supported, for similar reasons, by 
President Monroe, of the United States of North America. Of course, he maintained the 
British interests in Portugal against the French ; and this he would probably have done 
even if France had been in favour of a " constitution," because in that country Great 
Britain had special commercial privileges. 

In the Greek question. Canning kept his "classical" affinities in the background, 
and saw in the horrors of the Greco-Turkish war no reason for intervention. But 
Russia was to be feared as likely to use her championship of the Greeks as a pretext for 
encroachments in the Mediterranean : hence Canning was much put to it to guide 
affairs, through a tortuous diplomacy, in a way favourable to the interests of Great 
Britain. Though his phrases have become famous, they must be regarded merely as 
clever phrases. " A new world was," if we will have it so, " brought into existence to 
redress the balance of the old," and a " war of opinion " was threatened by Canning in 
the Portuguese affair. But Canning was too much of a statesman to work for "ideals." 
He was as matter of fact in his diplomacy as Castlereagh. They both followed a purely 
British policy, and differed only in their attitude towards revolt — a difference which, as 
suggested in the question, was due more to circumstances than to difference of intention. 

IV. References. Fyffe, Modern Europe, ch. xiv., explicitly answers the question at some length ; 
and it is more or less directly treated in all histories of the period, whether British or foreign. The 
actual speeches and letters of the two statesmen are to be found in Sir A. Alison, Life of Castlereagh, 
and A. G. Stapleton, Canning and his Times. For a short account see Sir G. C, Lewis, Administrations 
of Great Britain, 1783-1830. 



THE GREEK RISING, 1820-1828. 

I.. Question II. with what aspirations and by what metfwds did the Greeks 
struggle for independence P What part did Alt Pasha of Janina and Mehemet AH 
respectively play in the struggle ? 

II. Jottings. The Greeks, their past history— political, social, ethnological, Hellenes, Romans, 
Orthodox Christians, Classical revival. Commerce. Their relations with the Turkish authorities. The 
Hetairia Philike. The Hypsilanti episode in Roumania. Ali of Janina, his career and fall. Morean revolt 
182 1, its methods and barbarities. Turkish reprisals. Massacre of Christians, April 1822. Sultan's 
appeal to Mehemet Ali. Eg-yptian conquest of Crete, 1824, and of the Morea, 1825. Missolonghi 
captured by Turks, June 1827. Capodistrias, President of Greece, April 1827. Battle of Navarino, 
October 1827. Great Britain and France cause Mehemet Ali to withdraw from the Morea, August 1828, 
and Capodistrias conquers northwards. 

III. Answer. (i) Greek Aspirations. How far the inhabitants of the modern 
kingdom of Greece can lay claim to affinity with the compatriots of Leonida.s and Demos- 
thenes is a question not easily settled. That they are not of pure descent is certain, 
their blood being mingled with that of other peoples who have at various times inhabited 
the Balkan Peninsula — e.g., Serbs, Albanians, etc. Till the eighteenth century they 
called themselves Romaioi (Romans) because they had been part of the Greek Roman 
Empire which perished in 1453. But in the eighteenth century the Renascence had 
reached Greece, and under the influence of Korais and other writers, the " classical " 
language had been revived, and the people learned to call themselves " Hellenes." 

This Classicism, however, was not so deep a feeling (though it appealed strongly to 
Western sympathies) as their Orthodoxy. They were never allowed to forget they were 
Christians under a Muhammadan yoke, and they naturally looked to Russia, the great 
and powerful state of their own faith, for sympathy and support. Since the formation of 
Odessa, too, they had availed themselves of the Russian flag to carry on a lucrative com- 
merce. Their social and legal position under Turkish rule was by no means despicable. 
Religion supplied the Greeks with aspirations ; the ' ' classical " revival was quite secondary ; 
but both were equally important in winning the sympathies of Western Europeans. 

(ii) Greek Methods in Roumania and Morea, 1821-1825. The Greek national 
uprising — long prepared by the Greek Brotherhood (Hetairia Philike) established at 
Odessa — broke out at last in 1821, when the Turkish authorities were preoccupied with a 
formidable rebellion in the western highlands of Albania. It was not until Janina, the 
hill-fortress of Ali Pasha, was captured in February 1822, that the Turkish military forces 
were free to turn their attention to the Greek revolts. The first of these, begun by the 
Greek Hypsilanti in Roumania in March 1821, lasted less than three months. Before 
the Roumanian insurrection was crushed, a larger movement began in the Morea. 
Under various leaders, without any unity or uniformity, the Greeks rose and, for the 
most part, massacred the Turkish population in their midst. In a few months the Morea 
was cleared of Turks. The Porte was vindictive. Christians were massacred in Con- 
stantinople, and Gregorios, Patriarch of Constantinople was hanged. More terrible still 
was the massacre of Chios in 1822. The Turkish fleet captured the island, and the whole 
population, a most peaceful and cultured one, was massacred or deported into slavery. 

(iii) Outside Interference. So long as the Greeks held command of the sea, how- 
ever, the suppression of their revolt was beyond the unaided resources of the Sultan. 
He therefore called on his vassal Mehemet Ali, Viceroy of Egypt ; and, in return for 
many promised benefits, Mehemet sent his son Ibrahim to the help of his suzerain. In 
1824 he conquered Crete, and in 1825 the Morea ; and only a few fortified posts, in especial 
Missolonghi, were able to hold out against the Egyptian forces. Much of this Turkish 
success was due probably to disagreement among the Greek leaders, who in 1824, the year 
of their greatest success, waged civil war among themselves. They were but barbarians 
as yet. In April 1827 Capodistrias came to Greece as the elected President of the new 
" nation," and began his attempt to weld them into a homogeneous and orderly state. In 
April 1826 Missolonghi fell to the Turks ; and henceforward the struggles of the Greeks 
themselves are but a part of the forces making for their independence. Their condition 
had become an international problem. The battle of Navarino, October 1827, destroyed 
the Egyptian fleet ; and in the following year Great Britain and France compelled Mehemet 
Ali to withdraw his land forces from the Morea. Capodistrias took advantage of the 
Russo-Turkish war to extend the frontier of his country northwards ; but the final result 
was settled not on the battlefields of Greece, but by the diplomacy of Europe. 

IV. References. The general histories may well be supplemented by readings in Byron's poems and 
letters, and by such special books as W. A. Phillips, War of Greek Independence, 1821-iSjj ; Mrs. 
Edmonds, Koloktrones, Klepht and Warrior ("Adventure Series ") ; and Life of Sir Richard Church. 

23 



THE BATTLE OF NAVARINO. 

I. Question 12. Describe the international complications which led to the Battle 
of Navarino. What was the result of the battle P 

II. Jotting;s. Greek revolt in 1821. Russian attitude (territorial and ecclesiastical) towards Turkey. 
That of the other Powers generally friendly to Turkey. Subjects of dispute between Russia and Turkey. 
Anxiety of Europe to keep the peace between them. British recog-nition of Greek bellig-erency, March, 
1823. All but complete suppression of Greek revolt, 1825. Anglo-Russian Petersburg Protocol, Apn\, 1826. 
Russo-Turkish Treaty of Akkermaim, October, 1826. Treaty of London, July, 1827. Hesitation to carry 
it out. Battle of Navarino, October, 1827. Russo-Turkish war, April, 1828. Brito-French expedition 
restores Morea to Greeks, 1828. Treaty of Adrianople, September, 1829. The Powers driven to 
recognise Greek independence. 

III. Answer, (l) international Complications. The Eastern Question had not 
been taken in hand at the Congress of Vienna : hence the Greek revolt of 1821 raised quite 
different problems from those raised by the other contemporary revolts in Southern Europe. 

(i) Russia. For various reasons, the Western Powers were in^f^rested in maintaining 
the integrity of Turkey, at least as against Russia ; and Rust ^ on the other hand, 
resented such interference, both because she considered herself ine natural protector of 
Orthodox Christians and because she regarded Turkish affairs as falling within her 
"domestic concerns." While Alexander lived, this resentment was modified by his belief 
in the Concert of Europe; and till his death in December, 1825, Russian action was hesi- 
tating. AflFairs were further complicated by the fact that Russia had several outstanding 
disputes with Turkey, which were settled by the Treaty of Akkermann, October, 1826. 

(2) Russia and Great Britain. Meanwhile Great Britain had been driven, owing to the 
insecurity of trade, to recognise the belligerency of the Greek rebels in March, 1823 ; and 
the Sultan, with the help of his vassal, Mehemet Ali, had all but succeeded in suppressing 
the Greek revolt. In April, 1826, Great Britain and Russia, in spite of their mutual 
jealousy, agreed, by the Protocol of Petersburg, to erect Greece into a tributary State, 
from which, however, all Turks were to be expelled, and in which they were to own no 
property. If Turkey refused this offer. Great Britain and Russia were to establish a 
reconciliation, either separately or in common, on the basis of the Protocol. 

(3) Russia, Great Britain, and France. In June, 1827, Athens was at last captured 
by the Turks, after a " heroic " defence ; and public opinion in Europe was beginning to 
think that the Greeks had suffered enough to deserve some measure of independence. 
Accordingl)', in July, the Protocol of Petersburg was changed into the Treaty of London, 
between Russia, Great Britain, and France, the last Power having now come forward on 
behalf of Greece. Turkey was to be required to grant " autonomy " to Greece as in the 
terms of the Protocol. Should she refuse, the Powers were to establish commercial 
relations with the Greeks, and propose an armistice to both parties, which, if rejected, 
could be enforced by " peaceable " means, e.g., a " pacific " blockade of Ibrahim's fleet. 
In August, Canning died, and Great Britain refused to fulfil the terms of the Treaty of 
London, and France followed her inaction. But in October, 1827, Admiral Codrington, 
acting in a manner which Wellington considered to be in perfect accordance with his 
instructions, destroyed the Egyptian fleet in the Bay of Navarino. 

(ii) Results of Navarino. The immediate result was a declaration of war by 
Turkey against Russia ; Great Britain and France, anxious that Russia should not win 
all the advantages, and not trusting her previous declaration that she would seek no 
territorial advantages in Europe, took military possession of the Morea ; and Capodistrias, 
who had been President of Greece since April, 1827, took advantage of the situation to 
extend the limits of his country northwards. In September, 1829, Russia suddenly and 
unexpectedly ended the war triumphantly with the Treaty of Adrianople. Russia gained 
some small territory to the east of the Black Sea ; the Danubian Principalities were to 
have a purely Christian population and to be more under Russian protection than before ; 
the passage of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles was to be free for commerce ; and Greece 
was to be " autonomous," according to the Protocol of Petersburg. 

The whole series of events, especially the growth of Russian influence on the Danube, 
had been unwelcome to Austria ; and accordingly Austria now agreed with Great Britain, 
that, in view of the Treaty of Adrianople, Greece must be completely independent. 
Turkey, over which Russia was getting complete influence, would thus be diminished in 
size. The negotiations were tedious, but the result was that in January, 1833, Otho of 
Bavaria became King of Greece, independent, and with a fair amount of territory. 

IV. References. The best full account in English is W. A. Phillips, The War of Greek Independence , 
1821-1833. The international aspects, which alone fall within the scope of this question, are briefly 
bandied in Seignobos, ch, xxv. and Andrews, ch. iii (pp. 125-128). 

24 



ACCESSION OF CHARLES X. 

I. Question 13, IVhai difference, if any, did the accession of Charles X. make 
in the internal affairs of France ? 

11. Jottings. Parallelism (present to the minds of contemporary French politicians) between 
English history of 1660-1688 with French history 1814-1830. Possible parallel between (a) Louis XVIII. 
and Charles X., and (*) Charles II. and James II. Permanency of irreconcilable political parties in 
France. Gradual growth of the Reaction in France, as indicated by the ministries of Louis XVIII 
Incidents which helped this growth. The accession of Charles X., 1824 : Intensification of the reactionary 
tendency. Villele, Martignac (Liberal), Polignac ; Ordinances of 1830. 

III. Answer. (l) An English Parallel. It was a commonplace of contem- 
porary political talk in France in the twenty years after the fall of Napoleon to compare 
the "restored" Bourbons to the "restored" Stuarts of the seventeenth century. In 1814, 
Monk, Earl of Albemarle, had been the favourite character among French politicians : in 
1830 Frenchmen spoke much of William of Orange and the "Glorious Revolution." 
And there is, of course, at least a superficial resemblance in the two series of events. 
Much may also be said in favour of drawing a parallel between Charles II. and 
Louis XVIII., between James II. and Charles X. The two former were cautious 
statesmen, never venturing beyond what they thought would be borne out by public 
opinion. The two latter were " doctrinaires," each following a course which, at least in 
its later stages, was diametrically opposed to the public opinion of the nation, and losing 
their thrones as a consequence of their ignorance or recklessness. But the parallel must 
not be pushed too far. There was more contrast between the course of public events 
under James II. and that under Charles II. than between the public events respectively 
in the reigns of the Bourbon brothers. The reaction had gone far in France before the 
death of Louis. Charles X. continued on a larger scale his predecessor's later policy 
of furthering the wishes of the Clergy anti the Nobility. 

(ii) French Parties. During the greater part of the nineteenth century, France 
was more unfortunate than Great Britain in the history of her political parties. Proscription 
of political opponents died out in Great Britain under the rule of Walpole. Legitimism 
died, to all practical intents and purposes, at CuUoden in 1746. And since that date, 
British party politicians, though differing widely on political matters, have, on the whole, 
treated one another as gentlemen and as patriots, whose differences arise only from 
different views as to the means of securing the welfare of the common country. In 
contrast to this state of things, French political parties, at least for a long time, never 
ceased to regard one another almost as traitors. Legitimists, Orleanists, Republicans, 
Napoleonists sought to proscribe one another ; and the consequence was a bitterness of 
party strife which led not only to violent revolutions, or to the fear of such, but to endless 
animosity and uncertainty in ordinary political warfare. 

(iii) Growth OF Reaction IN France, 1820-1830. During the reign of Louis XVIII. 
we can trace the growth in power of a violent reactionary party. The " White Terror " 
of 181 5 and the "Chambre Introuvable" drove Fouch6 and Talleyrand from office, and 
the Due de Richelieu ruled till 1818. In the year 1818-1820, Louis XVIII. struggled to 
rule as a moderate Liberal, with Dessolles and Decazes as ministers ; but the election of 
Gr6goire to the Chamber and the murder of the Due de Berri gave to the party of 
Reaction in France much the same kind of opportunities as the Wartburg Festival and the 
murder of Kotzebue gave to Metternich in Germany. The French Reactionaries could 
and did represent themselves as the only men who could maintain the position of France 
against the jealous Powers; and in 1820 Richelieu returned to office only to retire the next 
year in favour of Villdle, the leader of the Reactionaries, who had practically directed 
matters for a twelvemonth. Thus, three years before the death of Louis XVIIl., the Con- 
servative forces had triumphed in France ; and the King acted, through his ministers, 
both at home and abroad, in the direction that Metternich and his fellow-thinkers desired. 
Yet, naturally, the accession of him who "had learned nothing and forgotten nothing" 
during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic period, gave further opportunities for reactionary 
measures. The emigrant nobles, who had left France in 1789-1792, at last obtained the 
compensation for their losses which they had long claimed ; the Clergy gained more 
influence and power ; unwelcome officials were dismissed ; schools were closed ; and the 
"National Guard" was dismissed. Except in the brief ministry of Martignac, Charles 
went further and further in this course, ignoring the views of the great middle class which 
the revolution had created, till he fell in 1830. 

IV. References. The standard work in English is J. E. C. Bodley, France since the Revolution, 
which is partly historical, partly analytical. It is also desirable to look at these events through French 
spectacles ; and for this purpose the accounts by Englishmen should be supplemented by such books as 
Coubertin, France since 1814, and Seignobos, Contemporary Europe, ch. v. (both translated into English). 

C.N.B. 25 7 



"THE GREAT JUGGLING OF 1830." 

I. Question 14* IVJia^ were the forces that overthrew Charles X. ? What forces 
set up Louis Philippe?' 

II. Jottings. The Reaction under Louis XVIII. and Charles X. The growing- unpopularity of the 
latter with the middle class and with the population of Paris. Attempt to restore "g-lory" in Algiers. 
The Ordinances of July, 1830. The Constitutional opposition. Republicanism in Paris. Lafayette, 
Laffitte, and Louis Philippe. The unstable character for a time of the "July" monarchy. 

III. Answer. As the question suggests, the overthrow of Charles X. did not 
necessarily involve the rise of Louis Philippe. 

(i) Destructive Forces. Since 1815, France had tended, with some interruptions, 
towards the Reaction. In 182 1, the Conservative party had placed Villele in power as 
minister, and in 1824 the course of nature had given them a King after their own hearts 
in Charles X. The Nobility recovered many of their old privileges ; the Clergy were all 
but restored to the position which they had held before 1789 ; various electoral laws had 
gradually narrowed the franchise; and the House of Peers had been "swamped" to 
outnumber the Liberal members. All this was extremely displeasing to the middle class 
of France (the bourgeoisie), which had come into existence as a result of the social changes 
of the Revolution ; and the whole reign of Charles X. consists of a conflict between the 
King and the Lower Chamber, in which, despite the narrow franchise, the middle class 
found its exponents. In 1825, the National Guard, the citizen army of France, demanded 
the dismissal of Villele, and was accordingly disbanded. In 1827 the censorship of the 
press was re-established, but Villele was compelled to retire in face of the opposition in a 
newly-elected chamber. For some months the King ruled with Martignac, a moderate 
Liberal; but the continuance of opposition persuaded him that "nothing would satisfy 
these people." In 1829 he resolved once again to defy the opinion of his people : he 
dismissed Martignac and made the Prince de Polignac his minister. In July, 1830, 
Charles issued the four "Ordinances": the liberty of the press was suspended, the 
newly-elected Chamber was dissolved, a new Chamber was to be elected on a still 
further narrowed franchise. All this ended, as it may always be expected to end, in 
violent revolution. While the parliamentary and the newspaper men were still considering, 
Cavaignac and Lafayette had roused the Parisians to rise in favour of a republic. 
Charles X.'s reign was practically over ; but it was still far from certain who should reign 
in his stead. 

(ii) Constructive Forces. French revolutions are never simple affairs. The great 
Revolution of 1789- 1795 consisted of five or six distinct movements : the revolution of 
1830, though not so complicated, was not a single movement. The Parliamentarians and 
their allies in the Press were in no mood to follow the republicanism of Paris. Like the 
English and the Scots in 1688, they wished to make as little change as needful, whether 
dynastic or constitutional ; and Laffitte, the banker, and his friends, especially Thiers, 
now brought forward Louis Philippe, Duke of Orleans, as a candidate for the vacant 
French crown. He could be made to seem Republican, for his father was the " Philippe 
Egalitd " of revolutionary times ; he could claim to maintain French " glory," for he 
had fought under the tricolor flag ; and he was sufficiently nearly related to the royal 
family to satisfy those monarchists who could not endure the " despotism " of Charles X. 
He therefore found favour with the middle class, and the republican party were outwitted 
by what we must call a bit of burlesque played by that old playactor Lafayette. In a 
somewhat theatrical scene, at the Hotel de Ville, the veteran politician threw over his 
republican friends, and accepted the new monarchy of the bourgeoisie. For some months, 
Louis Philippe, King of the French, ruled, as he said, by the grace of Lafayette. Only 
when the monarchy had saved the ministers of Charles X. from mob fury, and had 
convinced the Powers that the new French Revolution did not intend to imitate its 
predecessor and make war on Europe, could Louis Philippe be considered as safely 
seated on his throne. 

It was thus a union of all parties against ultra-reaction which overthrew Charles X., 
though it was the republican party which was most active. It was the middle class party, 
led by parliamentary deputies and "Whig" journalists, who, helped by Lafayette's 
flightiness, established Louis Philippe first as Regent and then as " King of the French." 

IV. References. The contemporarj' utterances of the principal actors — Charles X., Louis Philippe, 
Thiers, and Cavaignac — and the no less conflicting judgments of well-informed historians, should be 
collected and compared from the manuals and other books accessible to the student. As an illustration 
of the influence of the British Protestant Revolutions of 1688 on the Revolution of July, it may be 
mentioned that Armand Carrel, the editor of the Orleanist newspaper, the National, wrote a. History of the 
Cou7iter-R evolution in England (" Bohn's Library," 3/6). The headline of this page is taken from 
Coubertin, France since 181^, ch. iii. 

26 



BELGIAN REVOLT. 

T. Question I5» What were the cmises, and mohat the consequences, of the Belgian 

Revolt of i8jo P 

II. Jottings. Netherlands history. Differences (ling-uistic, religious, historical) between North 
and South. The King-dom of the Netherlands 1815. Causes of Belg-ian discontent, ling-uistic, com- 
mercial, religious, resulting in naionalisra. The Revolution. Questions of (a) existence, (b) extent, 
(c) dynasty. 

III. Answer, (i) Causes of the Revolt: (i) Ultimate. The Netherlands had in 
the fifteenth century passed by marriage to the Austrian Hapsburgs, and had then 
descended to the Spanish branch of that family. Against Philip II. of Spain they had 
revolted, and the seven northern provinces had made good their independence, under the 
House of Orange, which had risen finally through a stadholderate to the position of 
Kingship. They were mainly Protestant, and are commonly called " Holland." The 
ten southern provinces (mainly Roman Catholic and collectively known as "Belgium") 
were reconquered by Spain, and at the Peace of Utrecht, 1713, were handed over to 
Austria. They were conquered by France in 1792-3 and held by that Power till 1815. 
In that year the whole of the Netherlands were again united under the new title of " the 
Kingdom of the Netherlands," and given to the Prince of Orange. 

(2) Immediate Causes. The creation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands was regarded 
by the Powers in 181 5, and by Great Britain in particular, as one of the most important 
securities for the peace of Europe. But the union was unwelcome to the Belgians ; and 
fifteen years of Dutch control only strengthened their dislike. As Flemings and 
Walloons they were not unrelated to the Dutch ; but their languages were different, and 
Dutch was maintained as the official language. Taxes were so arranged as to lie heavy 
on Belgian agriculturists and lightly on Dutch merchants. Above all, the difference 
of religion was an insuperable bar to hearty union. The Clericals of Belgium wanted 
supremacy in Church matters and in education, while the Dutch rule maintained an 
equal toleration that to them was unbearable. By 1830 the various reasons for dis- 
content had so increased that the two anti-Dutch parties in the country, Liberal and 
Clerical, coalesced for the common patriotic purpose of overthrowing the common enemy ; 
and the Parisian revolution of July merely added the spark to the piled gunpowder. 

(ii) Consequences of the Revolt: (i) Existence. The Revolution was, as it were, 
but momentary. It was completed in the two months of August and September. But 
its eff"ects as a disturbance of the European international system, were more lasting. 
Whether the revolution, thus easily effected, would be permitted even to exist was 
doubtful. Russia would willingly have marched an army to suppress the revolt at once ; 
Prussia armed to prevent the spread of disturbance on its western border ; and Austria 
was prevented only by its general weakness from joining to restore the status quo. But 
France was favourable to the new State, and Talleyrand won over the new Whig 
Ministry in Great Britain to his views. The Polish troubles hampered the action of the 
Eastern Powers, and Belgium was recognised as a new State. 

(2) Extent. But what was to be the extent of Belgium ? Was it to include Luxem- 
burg, whose inhabitants had joined in the revolt and were represented in the Estates 
meeting at Brussels ? For Luxemburg was in a special sense the private property of the 
King of the Netherlands, having been given to him in 1815 as a compensation for family 
territory which he had lost. The fortress also was of international importance. It was 
finally decided that parts of Luxemburg and Limburg should return to the Dutch crown. 

(3) Dynasty. Finally, who was to be the sovereign of the new State ? The Belgians 
were not republicans : they " wished to have a king, like the nations round about them." 
The dread of the Powers was lest they would choose a French prince, and that Belgium 
would again be the first conquest of a France again revolutionary. Louis Philippe, after 
playing with the pleasing idea, was at last compelled to refuse the Belgian crown for 
his son, the Due de Nemours. Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, who had recently rejected the 
Greek crown, was at length chosen. He was related to the British royal family and was 
to marry a French princess, and would thus be connected with the two States who were 
"chaperoning" the debutante of European society. Thus a new State was, almost 
peacefully, added to the European community. The King of Holland was obstinate, 
and had to be compelled by a Brito-French siege of Antwerp to consent to the new 
arrangements. In 1839, to save his face, he abdicated his Dutch crown, leaving to his 
successor the task of submitting to the inevitable. 

IV. References. Something must be known and said about the earlier history, for that alone can 
show that the Belgian revolt was almost "inevitable," even if the Dutch had tried to conciliate the 
Belgians. Among the short accounts of the revolt, special mention may be made of that in Seignobos, 
Contemporary Europe, ch. viii., which contains valuable suggestive contemporary extracts illustrating 
the attitude of the Belgian Clericals. The second volume of Alison's Essays contains a paper on " The 
Partition of the Netherlands," 

27 



POLAND AND BELGIUM, 1830. 

I. Question 10. What chances of success had the Poles in 18 jo ? How did their 
rising and the Belgian revolt affect one another ? 

II. Jottings. Poland, its internal conditions and past history. The duchy of Warsaw. The king- 
dom of Poland under Alexander. Failure of Liberalism. Nicholas. The revolt of 1830. Vain hopes 
and speedy failure. Belgian troubles prevent Western Powers intervening in Poland. Polish troubles 
prevent Eastern Powers intervening in Belgium. 

III. Answer. (i) Condition of Poland. Poland (or rather Poland- Lithuania) 
had once extended from the Baltic nearly to the Black Sea. In the eighteenth century it 
might have been called indifferently a monarchy or a republic. Its elective king was 
powerless, its nobles all powerful, its peasantry practically serfs. In 1795 it suffered its 
third partition and disappeared from the map of Europe. Napoleon revived it, at the 
cost of Prussia and Austria, under the name of the " Duchy of Warsaw ; " and in 1815 
this Duchy was made into a new kingdom of Poland and given to Alexander of Russia, 
who intended to govern it in the spirit of his then Liberal ideas. But socially it was still 
unchanged. The nobility were self-seeking and oppressed their peasant tenants, and the 
religion was Roman Catholic for the most part. The Constitution which Alexander gave 
to the country did not work ; the Diet was unruly ; and the Constitution, after a fitful 
and chequered existence, was practically allowed to fall into abeyance. 

(ii) Course of the Polish Rising. In 1830 the Polish nobles may be divided into two 
classes : [ci) the Whites, consisting of the more powerful landowners, clerical and lay, who 
hoped, in conjunction with the Tsar Nicholas, gradually to reform the country and gain 
privileges ; and (6) the Reds, the lesser nobility, supported by the students, who began to 
desire a revolutionary change. The Grand Duke Constantine, who governed the country 
for his brother, had created a Polish army, and thus given the people the training necessary 
for a revolutionary success. When this army was brought together for the purpose of 
intervening in France and Belgium the Polish nobles seized control of it, and determined 
to make a bid for a constitution, if not independence. They hoped for outside help, but 
in vain. The Western Powers were more interested in Belgium, while Austria and Prussia, 
though glad to see Russia hampered, were too " autocratic" to encourage rebellion in 
their immediate neighbourhood. 

In fact, the question may very simply be answered by saying that the Poles had not 
the least chance of success in 1830, at least under the conditions of their country and of 
Europe. What might have happened if the nobles had been statesmen enough to enlist 
the help of the peasantry and make the revolt national is another matter, and too difficult 
a problem to solve. The enormous well-drilled armies, the destructive artillery and rifles, 
and the rapid transit which we now take for granted did not exist in 1830 ; and a really 
well organised national uprising by a small people in an indefensible country might have 
maintained itself even against Russia, till the Western Powers intervened. While Russia 
was unprepared, the Poles waited for a favourable answer from the Tsar to their petitions. 
When Russia was ready, all struggling was in vain against her overwhelming armies ; 
and internal dissension only helped the way to Polish ruin. All constitutional government 
was forfeited ; and in 1847 Poland was incorporated with the Russian Empire. 

(iii) Mutual Reaction of Poland and Belgium. The mutual influence of the 
Belgian and the Polish risings of 1830 on one another, and the results of the risings them-, 
selves, largely turn on historical geography. The "Concert of Europe" rested on the 
assumption that all the Powers were equally interested in all parts of Europe. But 
naturally the Western Powers were more directly interested in Belgium than in Poland, 
and they could intervene in a small country accessible by sea against a small potentate 
like the King of Holland with greater ease and safety than they could intervene in a distant 
inland country like Poland against the powerful Emperor of Russia. So, too, Poland was 
accessible and was a matter of domestic concern to Russia, while Belgium was distant 
and its revolt interested the Tsar only as a matter of principle. Hence the Belgian 
revolution held the hand of the Western Powers from interfering with Russian action in 
Poland, except by remonstrances which were not only futile but provocative. The Polish 
revolt, on the other hand, by holding the attention of the Eastern Powers, made it 
possible for Great Britain and France to establish the independent position of Belgium. 
Thus, in 1830, as in the eighteenth century, Poland suffered that the West might progress. 

IV. References. The question is treated in most histories of the period ; and the second part of it is 
explicitly handled in Seignobos, Contemporary Europe, ch. xxvi. For the Polish Rising the best account 
available in English is to be found in the third volume of A. Rambaud, History of Russia. The 
popular histories of Poland and Russia contributed by W. R. MorfiU to the "Story of the Nations," 
though based on extensive knowledge, are not very well put together. 

28 



MEHEMET ALL 

I. Question ij. How did the career of Mehemet All affect the relations between 
Russia, Great Britain, and France during the thirties of the nineteeiith century ? 

II. Jottings. Mehemet Ali, Vali of Egypt, 1809-1844, under the Sultan, Mahmoud II. (1808-1839) and 
Abdul Medjid (1839-1861). Russia desires to maintain Turkey, but in weakness. Great Britain and 
France, both jealous of Russian aggression, desire to maintain Turkey in its integrity. But Great 
Britain and France are mutually jealous about Egypt, because of India. The crisis of 1833 : Convention 
of Kiutayeh, the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi, and the Convention of Miinchengmtz. The Quadruple Alliance 
of 1834 ^"d 'ts weakness. Crisis of 1839. Quadruple Alliance of 1840. 

III. Answer. (i) the International Situation in the Levant. It was to the 
interest of Russia to maintain the rule of Turkey, because any proposal to end it would 
lead to dangers of which no one could foresee the result. On the other hand, Russia had 
no interest in maintaining the strength of Turkey, because she was constantly wanting to 
intervene on behalf of her co-religionists in Turkey ; and a weak state at Constantinople 
served her purposes best, because such a state would always submit to Russia and be in 
need of her help. For the same reasons, looked at from another standpoint, Great 
Britain and France wished to maintain Turkey as an outpost against Russian aggres- 
sion, for they were both interested in Eastern affairs and did not wish to see Russia 
barring their way in the Levant. But here their agreement ended. They were mutually 
as jealous of one another's power in the East as they were in common of Russia. 

(ii) Mehemet's Ali's Prosperity, 1832-1839. When, therefore, in 1832, Mehemet 
Ali, the Pasha of Egypt (who had so well fought for his master), made war on the Sultan 
to obtain the promised reward for his services in the Greek peninsula, viz., the 
Pashalik of Syria, and still more when his military career was even more successful 
than he had hoped, the situation forced on the Powers of Europe led to a diplomatic 
crisis. Russia feared a total overthrow of the weak Sultan in favour of a vigorous 
dynasty at Constantinople, and prepared to help the Porte against its too triumphant 
vassal. Great Britain and France, fearing the growth of Russian influence in Turkey, 
also intervened. They persuaded the Sultan to make the Convention of Kiutaych 
with his victorious enemy, and grant to Mehemet Ali the governorship of Syria and 
possession of certain military positions (May 5, 1833). Russia could now take advantage 
of the situation to pose as Turkey's better friend ; and by the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi, 
July 1833, she promised help to the Sultan whenever he should be attacked. 

Great Britain and France were angry at this treaty ; but as nothing further was 
done for some years, there was time for a change of the diplomatic situation. Tsar 
Nicholas was always desirous of an understanding with Great Britain ; and he gradually 
learnt that the Refortn Acts of 1832 had not made her a " revolutionary " Power, such 
as he considered France under Louis Philippe to be. He therefore set himself to 
separate the interests of the two Western Powers. His task was lightened by their 
mutual jealousies not only in the East, but also in the Iberian Peninsula. War had broken 
out in Portugal between Miguel, the "despotic" claimant, and Pedro with his daughter 
Maria, the " constitutional " sovereign of that country. In 1833 Ferdinand of Spain 
had died, and civil war had arisen there also between Isabella and her mother-regent, 
Christina, on the one hand, and Don Carlos, the "legitimist," on the other. In 1834 
Great Britain and France made with the governments of Portugal and Spain a Quadruple 
Alliance against the two "pretenders," Miguel and Carlos; but British jealousy of 
French influence in Spain hampered action and led to coolness between the two Powers. 

(iii) Mehemet Ali's Decline, 1839-1844. In 1839 the aged Sultan, Mahmoud II., 
renewed the war against Mehemet Ali ; but his troops were defeated at Nissib, on the 
Euphrates. Thereupon Great Britain and Russia agreed (with Austria and Prussia) to 
form a new Quadruple Alliance against Mehemet Ali. France was totally omitted from 
this alliance and isolated in Europe, because she was pursuing a diplomatic policy in 
favour of Mehemet Ali. For a time there were threats of war between France and 
Europe, and the situation alarmingly suggested the period of the Great Revolution. 
But Louis Philippe was fearful of consequences ; Guizot replaced Thiers in the French 
ministry ; and Mehemet Ali was forced to retire to his viceroyalty of Egypt. The crisis 
was over, and Europe remained still "at peace." But the Brito-French entente was 
shattered ; and the exchange of visits between Louis Philippe and Queen Victoria failed 
to restore it. Tsar Nicholas lost the rights of navigation through the Straits which he 
had acquired at Unkiar-Skelessi, but he had thwarted " the King of the Barricades." 

IV. References. The general histories of Europe require supplementing by (a) histories of the indi- 
vidual states concerned, (b) histories of modern Egypt, e.g., those by A. Cameron, Lord Milner and Sir 
John Scott, and (c) biographies of Lord Palmerston. 

C.N.B. 29 8 



THE SPANISH MARRIAGES. 

I. Question l8. what was the question of the "Spanish Mayriages" ? What 
other causes led to the fall of Louis Philippe? 

II. Jottings, (i) Spanish Marriages. Bourbon Family Alliances. Rivalry of Great Britain and 
France in Spain. The marriage scheme and the diplomatic tangle. Apparent triumph of France. 
Results in France and in Great Britain. 

(2) Other causes of Louis Philippe's Fall. Narrow basis of Louis Philippe's- power ; tendencies to 
drop the "Citizen King-" pose ; growth of social questions ignored by Louis Philippe; suppression of 
discontents. The " Spanish Marriages" and the Swiss questions. The revolution of 1848. 

III. Answer. (l) The Spanish M.^rriages. Ever since the death of Charles II. of 
Spain in 1700, France and Great Britain had been rivals in the Iberian Peninsula. Great 
Britain had succeeded in securing Portugal as an all but permanent ally. France had 
still more fully succeeded in securing Spain by placing princes of the Bourbon family on 
the throne of that countr)'. Many had been the alliances and marriage schemes between 
the cousin families : many a war had Great Britain waged to counteract the evil effect on 
her commerce exercised by the Bourbon family compacts. Even Napoleon had followed 
the same policy and placed his brother Joseph on the Spanish throne ; and the greatest 
military war that Britain had waged against France had been that pre-eminently named 
the Peninsular War. 

And now again, even after the long alliance between the House of Orleans and Great 
Britain, the Bourbon in 1846 was again seeking to secure a marriage alliance with Spain, 
out of which endless possibilities of advantage to France might arise. The plan was to 
marry Isabella, the young Queen of Spain, to her cousin, Francis of Assisi, Duke of Cadiz, 
and her sister Louisa to Anton)', Duke of Montpensier, a younger son of Louis Philippe. 
It was confidently hoped and expected that, owing to the character of the Duke of Cadiz, 
Isabella would have no children, and that a French prince would thus ultimately become 
King-Consort of Spain. Great Britain opposed the scheme by bringing pressure to bear at 
Madrid on the Queen Mother Christina, and by proposing the candidature of Leopold of 
Coburg, a relative of the British royal family. But this proposal was not seriously 
pressed, Britain being content if France would wait till Isabella should have children 
before the marriage of the Duke of Montpensier would take place. But France hurried 
on both marriages, which took place simultaneously. Great Britain, thus defeated 
in her diplomatic game, declared the entente between themselves and France at an end. 
France was left isolated in Europe, and French public opinion was angry at their 
king thus losing prestige for purely dynastic purposes. In the end, too, Isabella had 
children, and, even if other events had not made the " Spanish marriages " a question 
of purely historical interest, France would have gained nothing by her scheming. 

(ii) Other Causes of the Revolution of 1848. Louis Philippe had been raised 
to the throne of the French because the Republicans of 1830, led by Lafayette, had been 
willing to submit to the candidate of the parliamentar}' and newspaper party. He was 
essentially a " boiu'geois " king, representing the " middle class " of France. This was 
satisfactory for the men of 1830-1840, for at that time the middle class probably con- 
tained the majority of Frenchmen who were interested in politics ; and under Casimir- 
Perier, Thiers, and Guizot, France had been fairly prosperous and contented. 

But about 1840 there began changes in social conditions which brought forward 
other elements of political life. A great increase in material wealth had developed 
antagonism between Capital and Labour. Socialistic schemes of redistribution began to 
be advocated by Fourier and Louis Blanc ; and there was much unrest among the 
" working classes." All this was ignored by the King and his ministers. So long as 
the pays legal [i.e., the men who had the parliamentary suffrage) were contented, 
"elements of disorder" could be suppressed or ignored, apparently with safety. But 
when, under Guizot's leading, Louis Philippe embarked on diplomatic schemes which led 
to disaster and disgrace, such as the Spanish marriages and the intervention in Switzer- 
land on behalf of the Sonderbund, he disgusted his "middle class" supporters and lost 
the main support of his throne. When, therefore, in Februar)', 1848, agitations began 
again in Paris, no one was interested in supporting the monarchy ; and it fell even more 
ignominiously than in 1830. A republic was proclaimed, and another exile was raised 
to power — Louis Napoleon — as President of the Repub ic (December, 1848). 

IV. References. Besides the general histories of Europe, and the histories of modern France by C. K. 
Adams, Bodley, Coubertin, Dickinson, and Le Bon, there are available in English many interesting 
accounts of the July Monarchy and its fall. Some are by active French politicians of the time {e.g., 
Louis Blanc, Guizot, and Lamartine), some by foreign observers {e.g., Heine, Lady Jackson, J. S. Mill, 
Lord Normanby, and Nassau Senior). A critical bibliography is appended to ch. v. of Seignobos, 
Contemporary Europe. 

30 



THE SONDERBUND. 

1. Question ip* Summarise the story of the Sonderbund in both its internal and 
its external aspects. 

II. Jotting;s. The Confederations of Upper Germany and neig'hbouring confederations. The 
Helvetic Republic. Reaction in the Federal Pact of 1S15. International position of Switzerland. 
Cantonal conflicts. The Progressive Party, tending to centralisation. Ultraniontanism. The Sondcr- 
bicnd formed by the seven Roman Catholic cantons, 1843. Appeal to the Powers. Great Britain v. 
Eastern Powers. Palmerston's diplomacy. France checkmated. 

III. Answer. (I) Switzerland before 1815. From the fourteenth century 
onwards Switzerland had been gradually coming into existence, and it was formally 
separated from the Holy Roman Empire at the Peace of Westphalia, 1648. From various 
reasons and under varying- circumstances, confederations of village communities and of 
small towns had grown in what was then called Upper Germany, until the greater part 
of modern Switzerland was thus united, in various groups with different relations to one 
another, together forming a loose confederation of an oligarchic type. The French 
Revolutionists made it into a united Helvetic Republic, "one and indivisible," like the 
French Republic ; and this unifying work was only in part undone by Napoleon's Act 
of Mediation, 1803. In Switzerland, as in the neighbouring lands of Italy, Germany, and 
the Low Countries, the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Age did much to remove long- 
standing obstacles in the way of the development of national unity. On the fall of 
Napoleon, a determined attempt was made to restore the old order (or disorder) ; but 
thanks to the Tsar Alexander (who had had a Swiss tutor), some of the new arrange- 
ments were retained, especially in respect of the political equalisation of the components 
of Switzerland. \Jnde.r t\\e. Federal Pact oi Axigust, 1815, the cantons (now twenty-two 
in number) fell apart into their old loose confederation : both internal struggles and 
pressure from without were necessary to weld these together. 

(ii) SwiTZERL.^ND, 1815-1843. In Switzerland, as elsewhere in Western Europe, 
" Restoration" led to " Reaction," and " Reaction " led to popular discontent. As the 
reaction progressed many inroads were made on personal liberty and privilege in many 
of the sovereign cantons. But graduall}' the Liberal (here called Radical) part)' grew in 
public opinion ; and Swiss historians describe the period beginning with 1829 as the 
" Period of Regeneration." The goal of the Radical party was something approaching 
to the Helvetic Republic : at least they wished for some measure of unit}'. Against this 
the Roman Catholics struggled ; and the conflict was made more bitter b}' the Ultra- 
montanes, or extreme Roman party, who had re-introduced the Jesuits into some of the 
cantons, and who found themselves threatened by the proposal of the Radicals to 
suppress monasteries and generally to subordinate Church and clergy to secular control. 
In 1840 the anti-Clerical party suppressed eight monasteries in Aargau ; and in 1843, the 
Diet of the Confederation, called upon to punish this breach of the Pact of 1815, laid 
down a compromise which satisfied neither set of extremists. 

(iii) The Sonderbund, 1843- 1847. At once seven Roman Catholic cantons formed 
themselves into a separate confederation (Sonderbund), consisting of Luzern, Uri, Schwyz, 
Unterwalden, Zug, Freiburg, and Valais. The other cantons slowly made up their 
minds to disperse this new confederation which threatened the disruption of the country ; 
and the Sonderbund appealed to the Powers to protect the system which they had 
incorporated in the work of the Congress of Vienna, 1815. 

France, eager to play an important part in the world, took the lead in proposing 
intervention, and, had it not been for the action of Great Britain, the Concert of Europe 
would have found another task to its hand. But Palmerston, whether to have revenge 
on France for her treatment of Great Britain in the question of the Spanish marriages, 
or to checkmate Ultramontanism and reaction, cleverly interposed diplomatic delays, and 
meanwhile urged the Swiss Government to end the matter by force, and present Europe 
with an accomplished fact before any congress could meet or at least resolve. Accord- 
ingly, in November, 1847, the Sonderbund w&s suppressed by force in a twenty-five days' 
campaign. France lost the opportunity of restoring her prestige in Europe ; Palmerston 
had his triumph ; and Switzerland in 1848 replaced the so-called Fedctal Pact of 181 5 
by a really federal constitution ( Biindesstaat instead of Staatenbicnd). This was a long 
stride towards the establishment of the highly democratic constitution which Switzerland 
possesses to-day. 

IV. References. George Grote, the historian of Greece, wrote Seven Letters concerning the Politics 
of Switzerland in 1847. The best general works on Switzerland in English are Tlie Swiss Confederation, 
by Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham, and Diindliker, History of Switzerland. There are useful 
short accounts of Swiss institutions in Woodrow Wilson, Ttie State (ch. viii.) and A. L. Lowell, 
Parties and Governments in Continental Europe. 

31 



GROWTH OF LIBERALISM, 1830-1848. 

I. Question 20. Trace the growth of " Liberal " thought from i8jo to 1848. What 
were t/w principal outward manifestations thereof ? 

II. Jottings. Improvements in wealth and means of communication — railways and steamships 
Countries already Liberal in 1830. German " constitutions." The movement in Germany : " Hampach " 
and Miinchengratz. The Diet useless to Liberals. Austrian censorship. The movement in Italy : 
Roman revolts; Mazzini and Charles Albert; Pius IX.; the "Ferrara Incident." The movement in 
non-German Austria : Magyar Diets — Kossuth. Czech and lUyrian agitations. Galician peasants. 

III. Answer. (i) The Material Bases of Civilisation. Till 1830, Metternich 
had been able, on the whole, to maintain his system in Germany, Italy, and Austria, 
and to control, to a large extent, the international politics of Europe. After that date, 
however, though his authority was, at least apparently, as great as before, and even in 
some respects increasing, signs began to appear that it would at some time come to an 
end. In the settlement of the Eastern Question, 1830-40, Austria had been compelled to 
follow the lead of Russia ; and the revolution of 1830 in France and Belgium had effected 
changes which, in both method and results, were unwelcome to Metternich, but of which 
he had to make the best he could. The world was also growing richer ; material interests 
were developing which had been unknown before ; means of communication were rapidly 
changing ; and, as a consequence, ideas increased and were spread. The world of rail- 
ways could not be the same as that of the stage coach and lumbering luggage waggon. 
Increase of wealth raised various classes of the population to that amount of comfort 
which gives leisure for thought, and for discontent. 

(ii) The Old Order Changing. Most of the countries in the West were already 
Liberal in 1830, or were shortly to become so. In Eastern Europe, on the other hand, 
"despotic" governments were still maintained. The nationalist Tsar, Nicholas I., was 
doing his best to preserve Russia from being further polluted with Western ideas — such 
as Liberalism. It was mainly in Central Europe, therefore, that there was room for the 
development of Constitutionalism. Accordingly, the growth of Liberal thought must_ be 
traced in three groups — Germany, Italy, and the non-German lands of the Austrian Empire. 

(i) Germany. Liberal thought was found in the schools and the universities. It 
was rigorously suppressed, as may be seen in the case of the seven Gottingen pro- 
fessors who protested against the suspension of the Hanoverian constitution in 1839. But 
books were published, pamphlets circulated, songs written, all inspired with Liberal 
thought, and these could not be entirely suppressed. Even in German Austria, the 
smaller literature escaped the censorship and was greedily devoured by Metternich's 
subjects. In 1832 a meeting of enthusiastic Germans at Hampach, harmless as it was, 
led (among other causes) to the conference at INIunchengratz in the following year, and 
to a conference at Vienna, when the various Governments agreed together to suppress 
popular movements even at the cost of constitutional struggles. The German Diet 
became no more than a committee of princes working for reaction. 

(2) Italy. There were revolts in the Papal States in 1831-2 against clerical "mis- 
rule," but these were put down by Austrian troops. Italian aspirations, however, were 
represented by the thought of Mazzini, who dreamed of an Italian republic, and who saw 
that " nationality " must be used as a lever to bring about the cosmopolitan millennium 
of the future. Charles Albert, King of Sardinia, too, was an Italian " patriot," and 
waited only for the opportune moment to rid the peninsula of its Austrian and other 
"despots." Others again, like Gioberti, hoped to see a "liberal" Pope heading the 
Italian movement, and these thought they had attained their wishes when, in 1846, 
Pius IX. was chosen Pope ; but his " reforms" were extremely moderate, and led only to 
disappointment. The "Ferrara incident " of 1847, when Austria spontaneously inter- 
vened to put down revolt, only led to angrier feeling and to Brito-French reprisals. 

(3) Non-German "Austria." Here the spirit of "nationality" was growing. The 
Magyar nobles of Hungary, in the Diets which the Emperor found himself compelled to 
call, agitated more and more for the use of their own language and for autonomy. In 
the same spirit, but in partial opposition to the Magyars, the Czechs of Bohemia and 
the Slavs of Illyria were developing literary societies into political clubs. As Kossuth 
the Magyar began his career in 1840-1 with editing a Magyar newspaper, so Ljudevit 
Gaj in 1836 founded his Illyrian National Gazette. This growth, to a large extent un« 
checked, showed how weak the Austrian Government really was. In 1846 it was glad 
to employ peasant discontent in Galicia to help in suppressing a revolt of the Poles, and 
thus began to play with the revolutionary forces that were to work such effects in 1848. 

IV. References. The ideas which manifested themselves in these events can be realised only by 
wide reading in contemporary literature. Some of Mazzini's essays are readily available (e.g., in the 
" Scott Library ") ; and an excellent guide to the whole is furnished by George Brandes, Main Currents 
in Nineteenth Century Literature. 

32 



THE REVOLUTION OF 1848. 

I. Question 21. Hom far did the Revolution of 1848 succeed (a) in the Austrian 
Empire, (b) in Italy, (c) in Germany? At what point of time did it culminate P 

II. Jottings. , (a) Austria. Hungarian Diet agitated during Marcli and won a constitution. 
Bohemia did the same at the same time. Revolution in Vienna in March ; fall of Metternich ; further 
rioting in May ; Vienna ruled by a Committee of Public Safety. Bohemia won independence of Austria 
in May. Constitution for Austria granted in April, and the Diet met in July, (b) Italy. Constitutions 
granted in Naples (January) and Sardinia (March) ; Milan revolted in March, and Sardinia declared war 
on Austria; Sardinia joined by Naples and the Pope in April and May ; Italian arms successful, and in 
May-June the Kingdom of North Italy was proclaimed. (c) Germany. In March, revolution in 
Berlin gained a constitution for Prussia ; the Germanic Diet agreed to recognise the German Parliament 
which met in Ma}-, and in July appointed an executive and a Regent. 

III. Answer. After 1830, Germany as a whole, Prussia, Austria, and other German 
states were still non-Liberal ; Italy was governed "despotically " by Austria, the Pope, 
the Bourbons, and others ; Hungary and the other parts of the Austrian Empire were 
governed by the benevolent despotism of Francis II., or by the veiled regency that was 
substituted for the personal action of his successor Ferdinand. The outbreak of the 
French Revolution in February, 1848, and its speedy success found the material ready 
prepared in all these countries for further revolt, and in June some progress in that 
direction had already been made. 

(i) In the Austrian Empire. On 3 March, Kossuth made an inflammatory speech 
in the Hungarian Diet at Pressburg. This aroused an agitation which resulted, in conse- 
quence of the utter weakness of the Austrian Government, in a complete success and the 
granting of a constitution to Himgary, according to the ideas of the nobles, before the end 
of the month. The Czechs of Bohemia united with their German compatriots in demanding 
and obtaining similar privileges for their country ; and in May Bohemia gained complete 
independence of Austria, except so far as common allegiance to the Emperor bound them. 
In March also, the populace of Vienna, long discontented with Metternich's rule and 
permeated with Liberal ideas drawn from German pamphlets, rose in revolt and forced 
Metternich to immediate resignation (13 March). The mob of Vienna proceeded to 
imitate that of Paris ; and by May the Imperial Government was compelled to recognise 
the Committee of Public Safety which had been erected in Vienna, and even to look to 
this revolutionary body to keep order in the city. Croatia, too, was petitioning for reform. 
In April a constitution was promulgated for the Austrian Empire, except Hungary and 
Italy ; and a Diet, summoned under the terms of this constitution, met in July. 

(ii) In Italy. These successes gained in Austria-Hungary were due to the fact that 
the Austrian army was fully occupied in Italy. There the Neapolitans had risen, and 
obtained a constitution in January ; the King of Sardinia had granted a constitution in 
March ; Milan rose in the same month, and immediately destroyed all Austrian rule, 
except as represented by Radetzky's army, which was obliged for a time to withdraw. 
Sardinia declared war on Austria in the name of Italian " freedom," and was not only 
joined by Naples, but also blessed and encouraged by the " Liberal " Pope, Pius IX. 
The campaign during the months of April and May was successful for the Italians ; and 
in May and June the King of Sardinia thought himself justified, having "freed" 
Lombardy and Venetia, in proclaiming himself " King of North Italy." 

(iii) In Germany. In March a meeting of German Liberals at Heidelberg arranged 
for the meeting of a National Parliament. Revolutions occurred everywhere, and 
especially in Berlin. There, in consequence of continued agitation, the King not only 
summoned a Diet to discuss the future constitution of Prussia, but also put himself at 
the head of the German Nationalist movement. In May the German National Parlia- 
ment met, undisturbed by any, and proceeded during the rest of the year to evolve a 
constitution for " United Germany." In July it had proceeded so far as to appoint an 
executive government and a Regent. 

To sum up. Owing to the weakness of the Austrian Government, the " Liberal' 
forces were everywhere triumphant. Constitutions were granted to Hungary, to 
Bohemia, to Austria ; in Naples, Sardinia, and many German States ; Germany itself 
began to take shape ; and Italy made a successful effort to drive the " Germans " beyond 
the Alps. Till the summer of 1848 all was apparent success. Then began the reaction 
which in 1849 restored the status quo. 

IV. References. The standard work in English is C. E. Maurice, The Revolutionary Movement of 
i8^fi-g in Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Germany : see, too, the contemporary notices of the movements in 
periodicals like Blackwood, Edinburgli Review, and Quarterly Review. Both general and national 
histories deal at length with the "Year of Revolutioris." A suggestive analysis of the international 
tendencies of the time is contained in Seignobos, Contemporary Europe, ch. xxii.-xxvi. (with polyglot 
bibliographies). 

C.N.B. 3^, 9 



THREE HEROES OF REACTION, 1848. 

I. Question 22. What did Radetzky, Windischgratz, and Jellacic respectively do 
towards the reaction of 1848 P 

II. Jottings. (\) Radetzhy: Austrian commander in Italy; the Quadrilateral. Italian disunion ; Battle 
of Custozza (July) ; Milan captured (August); Sardinia v. Republics; Battle of Novara (March, 1849). 
(2) Windischgrdts : Austrian commander in Bohemia ; Nationalism zi. Constitutionalism ; Windischgratz 
captures Prague, and wins Bohemia for Austria; capture of Vienna (i November), and banishment of 
Austrian Diet. (3) Jellacic : in Croatia ; his hostility to Magyars ; his apparent opposition to the Em- 
peror ; war between Croatia and Hungary. 

111. Answer. These three served in different parts of the Austrian dominions. 

(i) Radetzky. When the Revolution broke out universally in the spring of 1848, 
Radetzky was in command of Austria's only effective army ; and that was employed in 
holding what was considered the most disaffected, and therefore most dangerous, part of 
the Austrian possessions. Nor was this consideration mistaken. All Italy was com- 
bining against Austrian rule, and, much as there was need of military help elsewhere, 
none could be spared from the " Italian " army. Even here it was only by Radetzky's 
obstinate perseverance, against all seeming odds, that anything was preserved for the 
Imperial rule. Even the fortresses cf the Quadrilateral, by which Austria maintained 
her hold, were partly conquered by Sardinia ; and if Italy could have rerhained united, 
she might have gained not only her own " freedom," but also that of Austria and of 
Germany. Fortunately for Radetzky and his masters, Naples and the Pope drew back ; 
and in June Radetzky was able to regain ground by recapturing Vicenza and thus 
recovering Venetia. Towards the end of Jul)' he won the battle of Custozza, and early 
in August he recaptured Milan. The war was over for the present : a six weeks' 
armistice was agreed upon, and the cause of Italy was lost. Not only so, but as 
Radetzky's army was now free for service elsewhere, the cause of the Revolution in 
Central Europe was also lost by the failure of Italian arms. Thus one man by en- 
durance had saved the Austrian system. It could now reckon with its other enemies. 

(2) Windischgratz. In no country of Europe more than in Bohemia are political 
forces so inextricably intermingled. Nowhere else do cross purposes so reveal them- 
selves. At first, in the excitement of March, 1848, all parties in Bohemia united together 
for a time to gain constitutional privileges ; but the desire of Germany to include 
Bohemia in its national union, and to receive deputies thence to its national Parliament, 
made the Czechs hesitate and begin to look to the Emperor to save them from absorption 
into a people with which they had no sympathy. In May a Pan-Slav congress met at 
Prague, and under its influence Czech Bohemia gained from the Emperor independence 
of German Austria. Windischgratz encouraged this movement, but when certain 
Liberal Czechs began to agitate for further constitutional reform he withdrew from Prague 
and bombarded the city into submission. Thus Czech national aspirations were used by 
the Imperial Government to checkmate the similar hopes of Germans and Magyars ; but 
their constitutio7ial desires were crushed in the cause of the unity of the Austrian Empire. 
In the Austrian Diet which sat from July to November the Slav deputies from Bohemia 
and Croatia were in the majority as against their German fellow-subjects. Later, in 
November, Windischgratz was able, with his army, to capture Vienna, the seat of 
Austrian-German disaffection, and thus help to complete the general reaction. 

(3) Jellacic. In the spring of 1848, when other nationalities were getting all they 
wanted, simply by demanding it from the helpless Imperial Government, the Croatian 
petition was rejected by the authorities, who had not then realised how useful Slav 
loyalty might be to them in the dire straits to which they were reduced. But when, 
shortly afterwards, Jellacic was appointed Ban of Croatia, the Magyar nobles, more 
shrewd in their estimation of the hostility between Slav and Magyar, began an agitation 
for his removal from office. The Hungarian nationalists knew clearly Jellacic for an enemy. 
The Emperor was not so clear, for Jellacic in his part of through-going advocate of Impe- 
rial unity, appeared at first as dangerous as the Magyars. To prevent Magyar control, he 
demanded, and obtained from the helpless Emperor, a constitution for Croatia. Subse- 
sequently, the Emperor acceded to the demands of the Magyars, and dismissed his too 
independent Ban. But Jellacic, secure in the support of the Croatians and their neigh- 
bours (the "Triune Kingdom "), defied the Emperor's commands, and formed an army 
with which, at last, in September, he declared war, not against the Emperor, but against 
the Emperor's enemies, the Magyar nobles. This declaration of war by Jellacic, leading 
the Slavs against the Magyars, was the beginning of the struggle which ended in the fall 
of the Hungarian constitution, and in the restored unity of the Austrian Empire. 

IV. References. The ordinary histories, general and national, may profitably be supplemented by 
C. E, Maurice, The Revolutiotiary Movement of i8jf8-Q in Jlaly, Austria-Hungary, and Germany. 

34 



THE RISE AND FALL OF HUNGARY, 1848. 

I. Question 23 • what were the causes (a) of the Magyar success in 1848, and <^) 
of the subsequent faihire P 

II. Jottings. Magyars, neither German nor Slav. Between Turkey and Austria. A militant 
nobility. Kossuth and Magyar nationalism. The Diet and the Pesth revolutionary party. The Twelve 
Points and the March Laws. Austrian weakness. Magyar v. Croat. The Slav movement. Windisch- 
g'ratz and Jellacic. Slav v. Magyar. Autumn, 1848. The reaction apparently successful. January, - 
1849. The war in 1849. Russian intervention. 

III. Answer. (i) who are the Magyars ? The Magyars, properly speaking, are 
no more a European people than the Turks. In the ninth century they conquered the 
country which we call Hungary, thrusting themselves like a vvedge among the Slav 
peoples, and dwelling on the south-eastern borders of Germany. Their later history con- 
sisted mainly of conflict with the Turks, and they found salvation from Muhammadanism 
only in their subjection to the Hapsburg Emperors. The alliance had never been a very 
friendly one, and was only one more element in the strange " race " conflicts which at the 
same time maintain and weaken the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Magyars may be 
said to have risen to equality with the other peoples in the Austrian dominions when 
Maria Theresa, in the eighteenth century, appealed to them for help against Prussia. The 
Magyars were a militant nobility ruling the peasants of their lands on feudal principles 
until, in 1848, they freed the peasantry in order to unite all in the struggle for "freedom." 

(ii) Whv did the Magyars succeed in 1848? In Hungary the agitation for national 
and constitutional reform centres specially round the person of Kossuth. He had for 
eight years before 1848 been working as a journalist to arouse Magyar feeling to the 
point of revolt ; and when, early in March, the news of the French Revolution of 
February reached Pressburg, where the Hungarian Diet was sitting, Kossuth made a 
speech which set the nation on fire. At first the Diet at Pressburg, and shortly afterwards 
the revolutionary party at Pesth, led the nation ; and from the Imperial Government 
— helpless because all its troops were in Italy — the Magyars wrung an assent to a revolu- 
tionary programme. Under the name of the "Twelve Points" and the " March Laws," 
all that was desired by Liberals of 1848 was granted to Hungar}'. Freedom of the 
Press, Trial by Jury, a representative Chamber, and many other "checks" on the execu- 
tive were adopted in a moment. Magyarism at Pesth and Germanism at Vienna joined 
hands to overwhelm the government of Metternich, and triumphed. 

(iii) Why did the Magyars fail in 1849 ? But the national feeling which, as Mag- 
yarism, had triumphed in Hungary, had also displayed itself in Bohemia and Croatia. 
The Slavs were in no mood to submit to Magyar control, any more than the Roumanian 
peasants of Transylvania ; and when Windischgratz had in Bohemia crushed the 
Liberalism of the Czechs and won their national spirit to the Emperor, and Jellacic had 
made good his position in Croatia as against Magyar arrogance and Imperial weakness, 
the Imperial Government used the Slav forces, thus placed at its disposal, to regain the 
position in Hungary which it had lost in March. In September, 1848, Jellacic declared 
war on Hungary, and the Austrian Diet declared for the equality of a// languages in the 
Empire. The murder of Lemberg only added bitterness to the coming strife ; and when, 
in December, Ferdinand resigned his crown, his successor, Francis Joseph, considered 
himself free from his uncle's pledges, and prepared to subdue Magyar " revolt." In 
January, 1849, the war was apparently over, and the Magyar cause had failed. How the 
Magyars found courage in despair ; how they all but captured Vienna ; how they quarrelled 
among themselves, and thus lost advantages which they might have gained ; how they 
finally declared themselves independent, and thus gave to Nicholas of Russia what he 
regarded as the right to intervene ; and how Magyar "freedom" was finally trampled 
under the feet of Russian troops — all this belongs to the year 1849. 

The Magyars succeeded at first because their enthusiasm found nothing to withstand 
it. They fell when Austria was itself again, though even thus Russian help was required 
to beat down Magyar despair. 

IV. References. The standard work remains C. E. Maurice, The Revoiutioiwry Movement of i8^S-g 
in Ifnly, Austria-Hungary, and Germany, More particular accounts are given in Stiles, Austria in 
iS^S-C) ; in Count Hartig, Details of I lie late Austrian Re'oolution (Appendix to Coxe's House of Austria, 
vol. iv. in " Bohn's Library"! ; ^"^l '" an anonymous work entitled Hungary : its History and Revolution, 
together with a copious Memoir of Kossuth, \n Bohn's Library. The Memoirs of De.nk and Kossuth have 
both been translated into English; and (leneral Klapka's accomit oi the " War of Independence in 
Hungary " was published in London in 1850. For the general antecedents see L. Leger, Austria- 
Hungary : A. Vambery, Hungary (s.N.), and the more popular books of Sidney Whitman, Austria 
(S.N.), and The Realm of the Hapsburgs. E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe, ch. viii. ^9, 
traces clearly the agglomeration of Austria-Hungary ; and there is a good ethnological map of Austria- 
Hungary in Phillips, Modern Europe (to be compared with Putzger, PI. zSa). 

35 



THE GERMAN PARLIAMENT, 1848. 

I. Question 24* Account for the failure of the German Parliament, and tnention 
the chief incidents in its career. 

II. Jottings. Reform meeting-s at Heppenheim (September 1847), at Heidelberg (March 1848). 
Committee of Seven. Ante-Parliament ( Vor-Parlainent , or National Convention) at Frankfort. Com- 
mittee of Fifty, National Parliament (a "constituent assembly "), IVIay 18. Election of an executive- 
and a Regent ; the Schleswig--Holstein incident; Germany cannot enforce its will; Shall all Austria be 
part of Germany ? Election of Frederick William IV. of Prussia as Emperor ; his refusal ; practical 
end of the Parliament. 

HI. Answer. The movement of 1848 for German national unity and for constitu- 
tional g'overnment was the work of enthusiasts, mainly of university professors and 
students, who never became practical enough for success, and whose enthusiasm came 
into conflict too early with those of other peoples. Its failure may be more specifically 
ascribed to its inability to overcome four incidents or obstacles which came in its way. 

(i) Czech Difficulty. The story of the Parliament began early in March, 1848, when 
a meeting- of several German nationalists took place at Heidelberg. They appointed a 
Committee of Seven who were to make preparation for a Parliament. This Committee 
was followed on 3 1 March b}' a Vor-Parlament , or Preparatory Parliament of representatives 
for all German}'. This Convention sat for five days and appointed a Committee of Fifty to 
arrange for the German National Parliament which, having been elected by universal 
suffrage on the basis of one deputy to each 50,000 inhabitants, met at Frankfort, i8Ma3-. 
The new assembly met with no opposition from the now discredited German Diet, 
but a sign of future troubles was visible at the very outset. As a result of Czech-German 
conflicts in Bohemia, no representatives came from that country. 

(2) Danish Difficulty. Their second difficulty came from the North. The King of Den- 
mark was also Duke of Schleswig and of Holstein, and was desirous of incorporating the 
duchies into his kingdom, the more as his heir was childless and the dying out of male 
heirs might lead, inasmuch as the Salic Law prevailed in the duchies but not in the king- 
dom, to a total separation of the duchies from the kingdom. But the inhabitants of 
Schleswig-Holstein mostly spoke German, and therefore imagined themselves to be 
German in "race," and Holstein had been a member of the Holy Roman Empire. 
Enthusiasts for German nationalism, therefore, became excited over the Schleswig-Hol- 
stein question, which became critical when Christian VIII. of Denmark died early in 1848. 
The German Parliament ordered the King of Prussia (who, since the Berlin revolution of 
March, had been favourable to the national liberal cause) to occupy the Duchies in their 
name. The Northern Powers, however, Denmark, Sweden and Russia, were opposed to 
the-separation of the Duchies from Denmark; after much hesitation the King of Prussia 
at last withdrew from the position into which his Germanism had led him ; and the Danish 
Party prevailed. This incident occupied the whole of the summer and early autumn. 

(3) Austrian Difficulty. Meanwhile, the Parliament had been endlessly discussing the 
foundation of a constitution for Germany, with much academic skill but little practical 
result. In November they at last decided to include in the future Germany the German 
parts of Austria, leaving out Hungary, etc. But by this time the reaction had so far 
triumphed in Austria over ,its difficulties of the spring and summer that the Imperial 
Government had decreed a constitution for the whole of " Austria," in which all its 
subject peoples and languages were to be included on equal terms ; and accordingly, in 
opposition to the German national feeling, it now insisted that all Austria was to be 
included in the Germany that was to be. The question was never solved, and Germanism 
thus received a third defeat. 

(iv) Prussian Difficulty. In the spring of 1849, they made a final effort to establish 
a national German government. They had already provided themselves with an executive 
and a Regent. Now they resolved to revive the medieeval Empire and to offer the crown 
thereof to the Prussian King. But by this time, Frederick William IV. had become 
disillusioned with " the glorious German Revolution," and he refused the offer. With 
his rejection of the Imperial crown the whole movement collapsed. The more moderate 
members of the Parliament left Frankfort, and its later doings are without interest. 

IV. References. Scattered notices of the German Parliament are contained in the usual histories, 
large or small, of Germany or Europe. There is a short connected analytic account in Seignobos, Con- 
temporary Europe, ch. xii. In 1849 W. Howitt published a book describing Life in Germany. An ex- 
cellent summary of German history since 1806 is given in the supplementary chapter of J. Bryce, Holy 
Roman Empire ; and there is a longer account in \V. Miiller, Political History of Recent Times. Com- 
ments on the German Parliament are found in the various biographies by C. Lowe, M. Busch, and J. VV. 
Headlam (H.N.). Mr. Headlam has in preparation a History of Germany 1815-1890 (C. H. S. 2 vols.), 
which, like his Bismarcli, will probably be the best book on the subject in English. 

36 



THE GERMAN CONSTITUTION, 1814-1848. 
I. Question 25. Tell the history of the German CojistUution, 1814-1848. 

II Jottines. Treaty of Chaumont. March, 1814, enacted that Germany was to be a confederation 
of independent sovereign princes, in which, by the^.V.^ Treaty of Paris, 30 Apnl .814, the Free Cjt.es 
were included. This was worked out in detail at the Congress of Vienna, May-June, 1815. The Diet 
was to consist of two assemblies. In .819-20 the Carlshact Decrees and the Fmal Ac of ^enna further 
nterpre'ed the Constitution in a reactionary sense. In 1833, in consequence of the Confere.ices a 
Miinchengratz and Vienna, the Diet made further reactionary rules. I"„>848, a programme of reto.m 
was nroposed at Heidelberg ; and Prussia took the lead in the "national movement. The Diet con- 
ente'd^o the nteeting of a German Parliament, theprogrammefor which was planned by a ^or-P"r!arnent 
or " Convention " in March-April. In May, 1848, the German National Parliament met, and got to work 
hi the autumn; but its ideals were impracticable, and conflicted with others-Danish Austrian etc 
Finally, when in April, 1849, the King of Prussia refused the Imperial crown, which the Parliament had 
oflfered, the movement failed and the Parliament gradually dispersed. 

Ill Answer. (i) German Confederation, 1815. The two or three hundred 
sovereisjn states of which German)- was composed in the eighteenth century had been 
reduced bv the Napoleonic war to thirty-nine. These were of greatly differing size and 
importance, Austria and Prussia being by far the two greatest. B)^ the Treaty 0/ 
Chaumont and the First Treaty of Paris. 1814, it was arranged by the Powers that 
Germany should be a confederation of independent sovereign princes, among whom the 
Free Cities were also to count. By the Act of Confederation (May-June, 1815) all 
members of the confederation were to have equal rights ; and the Diet, which was to con- 
sist of representatives of all the German governments, was to work out the detaIls^ By 
the Final Act of this year the Diet was to consist of a Narrower Assembly [hngere 
" Versa mmlnniA^x^hirem the eleven greater states had one vote each, while the others had 
six votes among them-and a General Assembly {Plenum), in which a two-thirds majority 
was necessary for ordinary measures, and a unanimous vote for fundamentals (Art. 7). 
Article n ambiguously required all German States to have Assemblies of Estates [la^id- 
^tdndische Verfassung). The Diet was more like an international congress of ambas- 
sadors than like a domestic parliament : it had no executive authority under its control. 

(ii) German Particularism, 1819-1847. In 1819, in consequence of agitation in Ger- 
many, and especially the murder of Kotzebue, Austria and Prussia agreed at Teplitz in 
Auo-ust • and their resolutions were confirmed by a conference of eight governments^ at 
Cadsbad in September. The Diet met in the next year and was compelled to adopt their 
resolutions. The Carlsbad Decrees enacted various repressive measures against the 
Universities, the Press, and popular agitation in general. By the Final Act of I lenna 
sanctioned by the Diet in June, 1820, all provincial constitutions must be monarchical, and 
must not be obtained by force. The Revolutions of 1830 were followed by the Conventions 
of Miinchengratz and Vienna in 1833 : these made it still more possible for Metternich to 
control the Diet, which henceforth represented only the princes. Its attitude towards the 
Liberal movement in Hanover fully illustrates this. Thus till 1848 the German constitu- 
tion was worked through its Diet in the interests of Austria and according to the policy 
of Metternich. . „ , . .. ^■ 

(iii) German Nationalism, 1848. In the spnng ot 1848 the continuous agitation 
beneath the surface began to show itself more openly. A meeting of Liberals at Heidel- 
berg in March put forward a programme of reform ; and the King of Prussia (though in 
a hesitating and doubtful way) put himself at the head of the movement. On 30 March 
the Diet was induced to declare for the meeting of a German National Parliament ;_ and a 
Convention or ror-P«^/«OT('«/ meanwhile (31 March— 4 April) arranged the constitution 
of the Parliament which was to meet. It met on 18 May and discussed much, but it was 
ineffectual for any permanent good. In the Schleswig-Holstein question it came into 
collision with Denmark and Danish national feeling, and Prussia after hesitation refused 
to carry out its wishes. It was opposed by the Austrian authorities, who were making a 
constitution for that empire, and were determined that Austria should lead in the new 
Germany that was to be. The results of the fighting in Hungary, Bohemia, and Austria 
were favourable to the Austrian authorities ; and when the King of Prussia, in April i»49, 
finally refused the imperial crown of Germany which the Parliament offered to him, the 
possibility of effecting the political unification of Germany on a national basis_ dis- 
appeared for the present : Germany, like Italy, still remained ' ' a geographical expression. 

IV References. C. M. Andrews and C. Seignobos differ from the other general histories of Europe 
in giving a connected account of this subject : the former is long and narrative (ch. vi.), the latter short 
and analytic. Bryce, Holv Roman Empire, traces the history of Germany 180&-1870 wi h a master-hand ; 
G. B. Malleson, Refounding of the German Empire, deals with Ihe subject as one of the Events ot our 
own Time " ; and \V. Wilsonf The Stale, ch. vii., gives a useful short sketch of institutional development 
in Germany (with a bibliography). For the constitutional ideals ol Ihe time see George BrandesJ/«». 
Currents of Nineteenth Cfntury Literature, vols, ii., vi. There is no good history ol Germany m English. 

C.N.B. 37 '° 



PRUSSIA, 1814-1848. 

I. Question 26. Trace carefully the chief events of Prussian history, 1814-1848, 
(a) internal, (b) external. Had the change of sovereigns any effect ? 

II. Jottings. Frederick William III., 1797-1840. Acquisitions in 1814-1815. Rivalry with Austria 
in the German Confederation. For the German people against the Princes. \ constitution promised in 
1815, but constantly postponed. Reasons for this. Administrative reform. Tariff reform and the 
Zollverein. Outmanoeuvred by .Austria and henceforward followed her lead. Frederick William I\'., 
1840-1861. The United Diet in 1847. Revolution in Berlin, March, 1848. The Schleswig-Holstein affair. 
Reaction in November, 1848. Rejection of the German Emperorship. 

III. Answer. The period 1 814-1848 was divided between two Prussian reigns. 

(i) Frederick WiLLi.wi III., 1797-1840. Prussia had suffered much in the Napoleonic 
period, and though the King sympathised with the enthusiasm for Germany, which had 
united, 1812-1815, to overthrow Bonaparte, his many sorrows had taught him caution. 

(i) Prussian Policy. In the inspiration of the national movement, the King had 
promised to give to his various subjects a constitution ; and this promise he always 
intended to fulfil when the suitable time should arrive. But that happy moment did not 
come in his lifetime ; and indeed the changes that came to Prussia, even at the moment 
of the promise, made its fulfilment increasingly difficult, perhaps even impossible. Those 
changes consisted in a vast expansion. To the nucleus of German Brandenburg and 
Wendish Prussia were now added Pomerania (acquired from Sweden), half Saxony, 
Polish Posen, and the Rhinelands inhabited by Roman Catholics, of a different religion, 
therefore, from the Lutheran inhabitants of the old Margraviate. So cautious a politician 
as Frederick William III. might well believe the only possible bond of union among such 
heterogeneous populations to be a common allegiance to an absolute monarch. 

(2) German Policy. In his German policy the interests of Prussia led him to a more 
liberal programme. Prussia and Austria were still, as they had been for nearly a 
century, rivals in Germanv ; and as Austria, under the leading of Metternich, main- 
tained the power of the monarchs who together made up the governments of Germany, 
Prussia sympathised more with the feeling of German nationality. But in 1815-1818 
Austria managed to outwit Prussia in the German Diet ; and before long the foolishness 
of some German enthusiasts brought about the reaction in which Prussia quietly followed 
the lead of Austria. 

(3) Zollverein. Constitutionalism and Nationalism proving thus but sorry dreams, 
Prussia fell back on the basis of material interests. While Metternich busied himself 
with diplomacy, the Prussian ministers carried out a series of administrative reforms, 
specially in finance and tariff reform. All internal " customs" among the various states 
composing the Kingdom of Prussia were abolished ; and then, by bringing heavy pressure 
to bear (by means of high transit dues) on her neighbours, especially on those whose 
territories were almost surrounded by portions of the Prussian Kingdom, she inaugurated 
and built up her famous Zollverein, or Customs-Union. Beginning in 1819 with a 
convention with the petty principality of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen, it grew till all 
Central and Southern German}- was included in its beneficent rule. 

(ii) Frederick W^illi.\m W., 1840-1861. In 1840 Frederick William III. was 
succeeded b)' his son, Frederick William IV.; and for some years it seemed as if the 
change of sovereigns had brought no change to the Prussian policy. But the son was 
more dreamy and less cautious than the father in both his own and confederate concerns. 

(i) Prussian Policy. In 1845, when Europe was full of unrest, he announced his 
intention to summon that United Diet for all his dominions which his father had never 
ventured to call. In vain did Russia and Austria warn him against the consequences. 
The Diet met in the spring of 1847, and, though its composition was thoroughly feudal, 
it entered immediately into a contest with its King. He was determined to have nothing 
to do with a "constitution": the members of his United Diet demanded to be treated 
as representatives of the people. The consequence was its dissolution in June, having 
achieved no result except to increase the unrest and create alarm. 

(2) German Policy. In the following March the explosion came, not only in Prussia, 
but throughout all Europe. The King of Prussia, unwilling to put down the Berlinese 
agitators by violence, yielded to their demands, summoned a United Diet for April, and 
for some time figured as the leader of the German national movement. But various 
practical difficulties dissipated his dreams : in November he dispersed his Diet by force, 
and five months later he declined the Imperial crown of Germany. 

IV. References. The student should collect the scattered notices of Prussia in his European 
histories and compare them with the connected account given sub Prussia in the better encyclopa^dias. 
A. Forbes, William of Germany., contains a biog^raphical sketch of Prussian history, 1813-1870: see, too, the 
first volume of H. von Sybel, Founding of the German Empire. Two facing- maps (\o. 30) in Putzger 
clearly show the territorial development of Brandenburg-Prussia. 

38 



ALEXANDER I. 

I. Question 27. Discuss the character of Alexatider I., illustrating your answer 
from his history. 

II. Jottings. Alexander I., Tsar 1801-1825 (father murdered after the " Battle of the Baltic") Early 
friendship for Napoleon. Later disillusionment. Attitude towards France, 1814-1815. The Holy 
Alliance. The Kingdom of Poland. Violence of Liberalism. Alexander's gradual change. The Greek 
question. Alexander's weariness. 

III. Answer. Few statesmen have attracted greater attention to their personal 
character and opinions than the Emperor Alexander I. of Russia; and none perhaps has 
more puzzled both contemporary observers and later historians. 

(i) Alexander and Napoleon, 1801-1815. Alexander became Tsar of All the 
Russias in 1801, when Bonaparte was just settling into power as First Consul ; and he 
outlived Napoleon's rule by ten years. He personally admired Napoleon ; and it was 
against the wishes of his Court and nobility that he made the Treatv of Tihit 
in 1807. That alliance was the beginning of the breach between the two Emperors. 
Even Alexander found the ruin of his country by Napoleon's "Continental System" 
too high a price to pay for such friendship; and the invasion of Russia in 1812 
turned Alexander into a determined foe of Bonaparte. But his quarrel with the 
Emperor did not lead him to hate France ; and in 1814-15 his voice was decided and 
powerful on the side of mercy to the country that had suffered from Napoleon not less 
than others. In these years, too, to replace Napoleon, he had conceived a personal 
affection for Frederick William III. of Prussia, a friendship which lasted till the end of 
his life : and in 1815 he met Madame de Krudener, a Russo-Swiss mystic, whose influence 
was predominant for some years. 

(ii) The Holy Alliance, 1815-1818. Under these influences, Alexander was now 
a Liberal, believing religiously in nationalism and constitutional " liberty" — at least for 
every country but Russia. He obtained for himself from the other Powers the Kingdom 
of Poland in order that he might govern that country as a constitutional monarch and 
with the co-operation of a Diet ; and, more than this, he issued proposals for the famous 
Holy Alliance. He thought it possible to base the international relationships of Europe 
on the principles of the Christian religion. What he meant by this was a puzzle to his 
contemporaries, and is evidently too large a subject for us to treat now. iVletternich of 
Austria used it for his own purpose of maintaining "law and order" in Europe, and 
gradually converted it into an alliance of governments against the forces of " disorder" 
that threatened the established system in Austria and in Europe generally. 

(iii) Alexander and Metternich, 1819-1825, Between 1815 and 1820, even Alex- 
ander himself was gradually weaned from his high aspirations. The murder of his agent, 
Kotzebue, was only one among many events (perhaps the most striking of them) which 
changed Alexander's views. He was disappointed, too, with his Polish Diets, and came 
to take the position that Liberalism was good only when it did not oppose governments 
with violence. When the Greek question arose in 1822, he was beginning to weary of 
life, and to desire to end his days in peace. He could not refuse to do something for the 
cause of "Orthodox" Christians, for he was the official head of that branch of the 
Christian Church, but he knew and appreciated the difticulties of the diplomatic situation. 
He died in 1825, when the tangle was most complicated ; and his altitude is best under- 
stood by contrast with that of his younger brother and successor, who immediately took 
up a more vigorous course of action, and in whose days war broke out between Russia 
and Turkey. 

Without presuming to judge the man, we may venture to regard Alexander as a 
monarch with strong desires for personal friendship, and with high aspirations in 
politics, both internal and international, but whose career was doomed to successive 
disappointments, for whom the world was too much, and who at last grew tired of 
striving for political objects, even when their advantages were both obvious and attain- 
able. Such "world-weariness" is by many critics regarded as the dominant note of the 
Russian novelists who began to make their mark not long after the death of Alexander I. 

IV. References. The general histories of Europe provide adequate materials for answering this 
question : opinions, contemporary and later, on the Tsar's character should be collected. For greater 
details, A. 'Rs.mhz.w&^History of Russia, vol. iii., the Memoirsof Prince Czartoryski, 1795-1806, and Clarence 
Ford, Life and Letters of Madame de Krudener (i-]66-iS2^) may be consulted. The Lives and IVIemoirs of 
men like Castlereagh, Metternich, ami Wellington also coiitain first-hand impressions of the Tsar. The 
account given by a contemporary Englishman, E. D. Clarke, of his travels in Russia, 1816-1824, is to be 
found in some libraries. 

39 



EASTERN QUESTION, 1829-1848. 

1. Question 2o. In what ways did the Eastern Question chiefly affect European 
politics for the twenty years after the Treaty of Adrianople ? 

II. Jotting;s. Treaty of Adrianople., 1829 : Mahmoud II. of Turkey and Nicholas I. of Russia 
(Polignac : Wellington), (i) Immediate: Great Britain and France resolved that Greece must be inde- 
pendent. Consequent settlement of the Greek question, (ii) Later: Mehemet All's career developed. 
(«) Russia's growth of influence, (A) British distrust thereof, (r) Breach between Great Britain and 
France. These points illustrated by the Convention of Kiulayeh and the Treaty of Vnkiar-Skelessi in 
1833 and the Quadruple Alliance of 1840. 

111. Answer. The Eastern Question during' this period was successively centred 
on two regions — Greece and Egypt — and in each case it revealed notable divergences of 
view among the " Christian " Powers of Europe. 

(i) The Question of Greece, 1829-1833. The Treaty of Adrianople m 1829 suddenly 
ended the Russo-Turkish war which, after long threatening, broke out soon after the 
accession of the Tsar Nicholas I. Russia's unexpected success led the Western Powers 
to fear more than ever the results of Russian influence over Turkey ; and whereas the)' 
had previously aimed at maintaining, as far as possible, the integrity of Turkey, they now 
wished to make Greece not merely " autonomous," but completely independent, so as to 
diminish the area of Russian influence. By using both military and diplomatic means, 
they finally placed Otho of Bavaria on the throne of Greece in 1833. 

(ii) The Question of Egypt, 1833- 1840. No sooner had this matter been settled 
than the ambition of Mehemet AH of Egypt started another series of events in the East to 
which the attention of Europe was directed for another ten years. The ambitious 
viceroy's " dutiful " revolt against the Sultan and the success of his arms naturally 
brought Russia forward to the help of her protege : it was at once her duty (under the 
Treaty of Adrianople) and her interest (for "they that are whole have no need of a 
physician ") to protect the " sick man " against the strong man. The Russian action, as 
naturalh', stirred again the jealous)- of the Western Powers. 

The question between Great Britain and Russia is one which will perhaps never be 
settled. Russia has often protested her pacific intentions and her wish to do nothing in 
the East without the participation, or at least the consent, of the rest of Europe. British 
ministers have as often acted on the assumption that these protests are insincere and that 
the Russians have selfish designs on Turkey. This general question is beyond our ability 
to solve ; but the outward events of 1833 are clear. Great Britain and France mediated 
between Turkey and Egypt ; and in the Treaty of Kintayeh, the Sultan, under their 
guidance, granted to Mehemet Ali much of what he desired. Immediately afterwards, in 
the Convention of Unkiar-Skelessi, Russia promised to help Turkey against her enemies. 

When the war was renewed in 1839, the condition of things was somewhat changed. 
Russia now persuaded Great Britain to act together with the three Eastern Powers 
against Mehemet Ali, and France was isolated in Europe. The reason for the possibility 
of this situation was that Great Britain and France were also mutually jealous of one 
another's influence in Egypt. This jealousy has had illustrations from the battle of the 
Nile down to the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. In 1840 it led to angry feelings in France and 
almost to war. But France was afraid of going to extremities, and her repulse in this 
phase of the Eastern Question acted as a nail in the coffin of Louis Philippe's monarchy. 
For a time, though still not heartily in agreement. Great Britain and Russia had acted 
together in the East ; and when Tsar Nicholas came to London in 1844 he proposed that 
the two Powers should unite to wind up the affairs of the Ottoman Empire in Europe. 
The proposal was not accepted; and consequently ten years later the first war since 
Waterloo between Great Powers in Europe broke out on the Eastern Question. 

IV. Remarks, (i) Attention is drawn to the comment made above on the Brito- Russian attitude in 
the East. Students should adopt some such treatment of difficult questions rather than the unfortunatelj' 
too common one of attempting a solution of matters which are still in dispute even among the deepest 
scholars. They are not expected to solve all problems in history : all that is required is to show a satis- 
factory knowledge of the factors in such problems. Many questions are entirely insoluble, and are put 
in examination papers merely to test the knowledge and skill of the candidates in stating the difficult}'. 

(2) Attention may also be called to the historical geography of the Eastern Question. The past 
history is well stated and illustrated with useful maps in Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe. But 
the potential political geography of the future depends on new facts. It is obvious, from a mere inspection 
of the map, that it is as natural that Russia should strive for southward expansion to the open sea as 
that the British Isles should form a single state. There are three possible ways : Which be they? 

V. References. The subject is treated connectedl}' in Lodge, Modern Europe, ch. xxviii., and 
in Seignobos, Contemporary Europe, ch. xxv., xxvi. ; dispersedly in the other short histories of modern 
Europe. Biographies and Memoirs of Guizot, Metternich and Palmerston contain the opinions of the 
most influential statesmen ; also S. L. Poole, Life of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, The ofticial docinnents 
and treaties are printed with introduction and notes in T. E. Holland, The European Concert in the 
E(*stern Question, 

40 



THE MAP OF EUROPE, 1814-1848. 

I. Question 29. what -were the tei-ritoriiU arrmigements of 1814-1S15? What 
changes in them had taken place before the end of 1848 ? 

II. Jottings. Basis, Treaty of Chaumont, March, 1814: tbrmal settlement at "Congress of 
Vienna, 1814-5. Germany to consist of Austria, Prussia, and thirty-eight other States. Austria to 
receive Krakau, Venice, Lombardy. Prussia much increased North-west and East : question oi her 
compensation for losses in Poland. Saxony to lose, and Bavaria to gain. Finland and Poland to Russia. 
The Netherlands and Luxemburg joined as a barrier against France. Switzerland. In Italy, Sardniia 
to have Genoa. Restorations. Denmark loses Norway to Sweden. Great Britain, and colonial 
settlements. France restricted to boundary of 1789, modified. 

III. Answer. (i) territorial arrangements, 1814-1815. 

(i) Germany. Instead of the Holy Roman Empire with its three hundred "sovereign 
princes," there was to be a German Confederation consisting- of Austria, Prussia, and 
thirty-eight other States. Of these four were Ivingdoms, eight grand duchies, eleven 
duchies, eleven principalities, and four free cities. Austria became president of this 
confederation, but received no extension of territory in Germany — Qui}, keeping Salzburg 
instead of her abandoned territories in Swabia. Prussia obtained various readjustments 
of territory by way of compensation for losses : in exchange for Lauenburg she received 
the rest of Pomerania from Sweden ; she acquired the northern half of Saxony ; in addition 
to her shares in the two first partitions of Poland she had Posen and the town of Thorn ; 
and by way of satisfaction for losing much of her gains in the third partition, she received 
the Rhenish Provinces. The kingdom of Bavaria received the district round Mainz, 
formerly known as the Lower Palatinate. 

(2) Non-Germany. Most of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw (Napoleon's creation) 
became the kingdom of Poland, and was given to the Tsar Alexander, who also received 
Finland from Sweden ; though neither of these can be said to have been added to Russia. 
Great Britain caused the Powers to establish as a barrier against French aggression in 
the north a new kingdom for the house of Orange, made out of the United and the 
Austrian Netherlands of former times ; and to increase the strength of this ki^ngdom it was 
associated with the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, a member of the German Confederation. 
Switzerland was re-modelled and enlarged in the West at the cost of France. 

In Italy, the King of Sardinia, besides receiving back Savoy, etc., now acquired 
Genoa, which gave him a sea-board ; Austria received back her old territory of Lombardy 
(the Milanese), and her more recent acquisitions, Venetia and her Dalmatian dependencies ; 
the Pope was restored to his possessions, as were also other Italian princes. 

Denmark lost Norway to Sweden and received only small compensation, viz., the 
duchy of Lauenburg. But then, she, like Saxony, had remained an ally of Francefor 
some time longer than her neighbours; and she had to suffer for her loyalty or indiscretion. 
France was reduced to her boundaries of- 1789, except that she retained the enclaves ot 
Avignon and the Venaissin on the Rhone. This territorial reduction was not intended to 
be so complete until after Napoleon's Hundred Days. That escapade cost her Chambifry 
and other parts of Savoy. Great Britain gained, in Europe, Heligoland from Denmark, 
Malta, and the protectorate of the Ionian Isles. 

(3) Non-Europe. There were further rearrangements of colonial territory among the 
Atlantic Powers. Great Britain received Trinidad from Spain, Mauritius, Tobago and 
St. Lucia from France. She also made some significant exchanges with Holland : she 
received Ceylon and the Cape of Good Hope, which helped to build up her Indian Empire, 
but she gave back to Holland the islands of the Farther East, e.g., Java, and also 
Curagao, etc. France received from Great Britain Martinique and the Isle de Bourbon, 
from Sweden Guadeloupe, and from Portugal Cayenne and her share of Guiana. 

(ii) Territorial Changes, 1815-1848. There were many territorial changes 
affecting European Powers— especially outside Europe— during the generation which 
followed the battle of Waterloo ; but only two of these modified the arrangements of 
1814-S, viz., the separation of Holland and Belgium in the thirties and the annexation by 
Austria of the Polish Republic of Krakau in 1846. The establishment of the kingdom ot 
Greece in 1833 was not technically a change in " the territorial arrangements of 1814-5," 
for the Eastern Question had not been among the agenda of the Congress ot Vienna. 

IV. Remarks. This answer might be much simplified in both matter and method ; but it is at any 
rate less vague and incoherent than the question, which is a typical examination question. The reasons 
for and against these territorial arrangements actually made or suggested are more important than the 
territorial arrangements themselves. . 

V. References. The arrangements are given, variously grouped, in the several liistones ot liurope, 
in which the Congress of Vienna is either a starting, or a stopping, or a passing, point. 1 hey require 
illustration by a map, and by reference to the past: the best place to hnd both is in K. A. l<reeinan, 
Historical Geography of Europe. Two of the maps in Putzger, Plate 2SA, show how far the settlement 
at Vienna was from being based on the " principle of Nationality " (so far as that is based on Kace ). 

C.N.B. 41 ',' 



EUROPEAN COLONIES, 1814-1848. 

1. Question 30. IVAcU European Powers had colonies in the years 1814-1848 ? 
What effect did their possession have on European politics ? 

II. Jottings. (i) Colonial Powers, 1814-1848. Great Britain: dependencies; colonies proper — 
orig-inal (Australia), conquered (Canada, Cape) ; plantations and stations, etc. France : Africa, N. and 
W. ; India ; West Indies ; Bourbon. Spain : America, mostly in revolt, except Florida (to U. S. A. 
1819) ; West Indies ; Philippines ; Fernando Po. Portug-al : India ; Brazil ; Africa, E. and W. Hol- 
land : Indies, E. and W. (exchang-es, etc., 1815). Sweden and Denmark: in West Indies. Russia: 
internal colonisation. 

(A Effects : Spanish Colonies, Russian expansion eastwards, Monroe Doctrine and Canning-; Great 
Britain and the route to Far East (hence partly Mediterranean anxieties) ; Rivalry between Great 
Britain and France in Mediterranean (Ionian Isles, Malta, Levant, Eg-ypt, Marocco) ; French desire to 
make up for old losses — hence new attempts in Africa and in Pacific (New Zealand, etc.), especially 
under Louis Philippe. 

III. Answer, (i) the Colonial Powers of the period fall into three groups : 
(«) Great Britain ; (b) the six Atlantic Powers of the Continent (Sweden and Denmark 
being of little importance) ; and (c) Russia (in Siberia and Alaska). 

(ii) The Influence of Colonies on European Politics, 1814-1848. The Peace 
of Paris left Great Britain in the position (of which she was herself scarcely conscious) 
of a World-Power, and in one way or another gave all the Colonial Powers of the 
Continent some cause of annoyance with her. 

(i) Spanish Colonies. Undercover of the Peninsular War, most of the colonies of the 
Spanish Main made good the claims to independence which had been encouraged by the 
American and French Revolutions ; and in the European Congresses of 1820-1823 there 
was much talk (not without hope of reward) of European intervention to restore these 
"revolutionary" republics to the rule of Ferdinand VII. This would have been contrary to 
the commercial interests of Great Britain and to the political interests of the United States 
of America : hence in 1823 George Canning and James Monroe, independently but in co- 
operation, prevented the proposed intervention. The Monroe Message was directed not 
only against the re-establishment of Bourbon influence, French or Spanish, in South 
America, but also against the threatened extension of Russian power southwards from 
Alaska into the no man's land of California. 

(2) Portuguese Colonies — mainly Brazil. During the twenties Great Britain protected 
Portugal from French conquest and paid herself by helping Brazil to become independent 
ot the Mother Country. For long afterwards British financiers and commercial men 
exploited the Latin states in South America, and thus increased the wealth and power of 
Great Britain and European jealousies of her power. 

(3) French Colonies. France was sore about losing her colonies and not infrequently 
tried to obtain w^vi ones. Her occupation of Sainte Marie (off Madagascar) in 1821, her 
conquest of Algiers in the thirties, and her later essays in the Pacific (she almost fore- 
stalled Great Britain in occupying New Zealand) illustrated and increased the colonial 
jealousies which often wrecked the accord of the two " Liberal " Powers in Europe. 

(4) Dutch Colonies. At the Peace of Paris Great Britan restored Java to Holland 
and paid her ;^6,ooo,ooo for the Cape of Good Hope and other colonial territories 
retained ; and ten 3'ears later the two countries made a friendly arrangement whereby the 
Dutch exchanged their settlements on the Asiatic mainland for the British settlements in 
the Spice Islands. But there were long-standing jealousies in S. E. Asia, and new causes 
of quarrel arose out of the different attitudes of the two countries on the Slave Trade ; 
and these partly account for the action of Great Britain in establishing the independence 
of Belgium in the thirties, and of Holland in encouraging the discontented Boers in 
Natal in the forties. 

At the Peace of Paris, Great Britain retained Malta, Cape Colony, and Mauritius 
and soon afterwards occupied Ascension — all places on the then road to India ; and in 
1815 she established a monthlv mail service to India with a reduced postal rate of 3/6 
per qr. oz. Somewhat later the possibilities of a shorter "overland route" via Suez, 
began to be the subject of discussion and experiment : and this largely accounts for the 
occupation of Aden in 1839 and for British intervention in the Levant about the same time. 

IV. References. The ordinary manuals of European History hardly contain even materials for such 
a meagre sketch as the above on this highly important question. For further information the handiest 
sources are E. J. Payne, European Colonies (the able writer's forecasts, written in 1877, are interesting 
reading in the changed circumstances of to-day), and C. P. Lucas, Introduction to tlie Historical 
Geography of the Britisli Colonies. Mr. Payne has in preparation a larger work on the interesting and 
promising ex-colonial states of South America (C. H. S.). Larger general works are H. C. Morris, 
History of Colonisation from the Earliest Times to the Present Day (Macmillan, 2 vols. 15/- net), and 
Poultney Bigelow, Children of the Nations (Heinemann, 10/- net). 

42 



SEA-POWER, 1814-1848. 

I. Question ^l. what illustrations does the period i%\\-\^\^ afford of the impor- 
tance of Sea Power in international politics ? 

II. Jottings. Napoleon at Elba and St. Helena. Cannings policy in South America and Portugal, 
1S23-5. Growth of Greater Britain. The Barbary pirates. The Greek revolt. French in Algiers, 1830. 
France and Mehemet AH, 1839. The Dardanelles, 1822-39. 

III. Answer. One fact which, thoug-h it played so great a part in 1814-1848, yet 
long- escaped the notice of historians is the superiority of Great Britain at sea. 

(i) In the Atlantic. British superiority is seen to be undisputed on the Atlantic, 
and to be at least maintained ag-ainst weak endeavours in the Mediterranean. When 
Napoleon was to be put out of Europe, and it had been found that the sovereignty of 
Elba was at once too small and too large for such a man, the Powers had no choice but 
to entrust him to Great Britain, the only State which had a prison at once large enoug-h 
and secure enough, viz., the Atlantic. Britain borrowed St. Helena from her East India 
Company and kept Napoleon there till his death in 182 1. When revolts in Spain and 
Portugal (1823-5) were causing the Powers to hold Congresses with a view to inter- 
vention, and when Canning was " calling the New World into existence to redress the 
balance of the Old," and threatening a "war of opinion" if Portugal were invaded, no 
one seems to have disputed British power to protect the South American "States," to 
send fleets to Lisbon harbour, or to land marines in the Portuguese capital. 

(ii) In the Pacific. The sea-power of Great Britain — paid for by her maritime com- 
merce — was extended all over the world by means of her navy and the chain of naval 
stations along the ocean-routes. The growth of Britain's second empire in Australasia 
and Canada was mainly due to her absolute and almost unchallenged control of the ocean. 

(iii) In the Mediterranean. It was otherwise in the Mediterranean. There Great 
Britain, though then able to hold her own, had to deal with Powers who had interests as 
well as herself. Italy was, as yet, " a geographical expression," and Spain had ceased 
to be a Great Power ; but Turkey had a fleet ; so too had her nominal vassals in Egypt 
and Barbar}' ; and the island Greeks were of necessity sailors. Not these, however, but 
France and Russia, were Britain's rivals in the Mediterranean. 

(i) Barbary. In i8i8,attheCongressofAix-la-Chapelle, Russia and Prussia proposed 
to destroy the Barbary pirates; but Great Britain, fearful of seeing Russian ships in the 
Mediterranean, vetoed the proposal. A few years later, however, the piracy of the Bar- 
bary corsairs was ended by the French conquest of Algiers in 1830. Britain was so far 
jealous of this growth of French power in the Mediterranean that she required promises 
that the occupation should be merely temporary and should not be extended. These pro- 
mises, like the similar promises of Great Britain regarding Egypt, have not been kept. 

(2) Greece. The Greek revolt (1822-32) illustrates naturally the effect of sea-power. 
While the Greeks were opposing only Turkey, they had it all their own way, and most of 
the towns that were besieged could be relieved by sea. It was not till Ibrahim led his 
adoptive father's fleet to the help of his suzerain that the Greek cause seemed to fall into 
hopeless ruin. Finally the Battle of Navarino, by destroying the Turko-Egyptian fleet, 
enabled the diplomatists to settle the struggle in favour of the Greeks. 

(3) The Levant. The history of Mehemet Ali, 1832-39, turned on the mutual jealousies 
among the Powers. France championed the cause of Egypt, but failed against the rest 
of Europe banded together in the Quadruple Alliance of 1840. ."^11 the later story of Egj'pt 
has further illustrated Brito-French relationships on the revived short route to India. 

(4) The Straits. The question of the Dardanelles is important in this connection. 
They are the strait which opens or closes for Russia the entrance to the Mediterranean. 
They were made free in 1822 to the vessels of all nations. Turkey's closure of them to 
Russia in 1827 was one of the causes of war of that time, and by the Treaty of Adrianople, 
Russia forced Turkey to acknowledge her treaty-rights. In 1833, by the Treaty of Unkiar- 
Skelessi in which Russia undertook the defence of Turkey, she obtained a promise that 
the Dardanelles should be closed to the warships of all nations (so as to leave Russia 
alone able to approach Constantinople by sea) ; and when Russia was trying in 1839 to 
win Britain's goodwill, she offered to close also the Bosporus, even to herself. But these 
were only the early steps in a long quarrel which reached a climax in the Crimean War. 

IV. References. Incidental remarks are to be found in the ordinary histories of Europe, but the only 
connected view of this subject (and that but partial) is in J. M. Callwell, The Effects of Maritime Com- 
mand on Land Campaigns since Waterloo. Captain Mahan's works on Sea Power end with 1815, and 
Mr. W. F. Lord's sketch of the relations of England and France in the Mediterranean ends at 1830. 
Much illustrative matter will be found in the naval histories of W. L. Clowes (Vol. vi.) and D. Hannay, 
and in the biographies of Sir Thomas Maitland (by W. F. Lord), Sir Stamford Raffles (by H. E. Egerton), 
and Lord Dundonald (by J. W. Fortescue). 

. . ; 43 



TWO KINDS OF " LIBERTY." 

1. Question 32* Distinguish between "nationalism" and " constitutional govern- 
moit." Why ivere tlicse not always compatible ? 

II. Jottings: "Nationalism" defined: often called "liberty." "Constitutional g'overnment " 
defined : often called "liberty." The word "liberty" : its ambiguity, its use and abuses. Illustrations 
of the incompatilit^' of the two ideals : Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria, France reconciles both ideals. 

III. Answer. (l) some Definition oe the Terms. A nation is a people having 
in common not only a common government (as a state which is not a nation may have), 
but also something else such as language, religion, race or histor}'. 

(i) Nationalism is a belief and a desire that a people which has the other necessary 
qualifications for a " nation " should, inclusively and exclusively, constitute a State. This 
extremely complex idea is often summarised in the single word " libert}-," which in this 
sense means freedom from the control of any government that is felt to be " foreign." 

(2) Constitutional Government may mean any form of goverment which, at any given 
time or place, is regarded as normal ; but in Europe, during the nineteenth centurv, it has 
commonly been adopted as a convenient name for any form of government in which 
an assembly, more or less popularly elected, has a definite and permanent share. This 
modern and complex idea is also expressed briefly by the single word " liberty," which, 
in this sense, has an internal not an external significance. " Liberty," indeed, is a word 
which, as has been wittily said, expresses " whatever in politics we want." 

(ii) Some Applications of the Ideas. During the years 1814-1848 "liberty" in 
both these senses has been an object of desire at various times and in various places ; 
but the two ideals were not always compatible one with another. 

(i) In Spain, for example, it is abundantly clear that the people as a whole were 
strong "nationalists": the stof}' of their "revolt" against Napoleon is sufficient to 
prove that. But it is equally evident that they had little desire and less capacity for 
" constitutional government." Some few were keen "constitutionalists," and military 
discontent was apt to express itself in a cry for " the Constitution of 1812 " ; but for the 
most part Spaniards were (and are still) strong' believers in their Church and its govern- 
ment by priests, strong haters of anything unorthodox, and far more inclined to believe 
in an Inquisition, however " unenlightened," than in a Cortes set on secular education. 
The reasons lie deep in the whole course of Spanish history and national education. 

(2) In Italy, again, the sense of "nationality" was gaining ground on the old 
provincial sentiment — at an}' rate, among her leading statesmen ; but desire for " con- 
stitutional government," though also present, was not so strong as the other. It was 
only the fact that the kingdom of Sardinia had a Parliament before it coalesced with the 
rest of Italy that has given Ital}' to-daj' both of these desiderata. 

(3) In Germany, the conditions in 1814-48 were most peculiar. The Napoleonic rule 
and the War of Liberation had combined to create an equal desire for "nationalism," 
i.e., for the unity of all Germans under one government, and for "constitutional 
government." But the former was unattainable, except under the control of the 
ridiculously inefficient and utterl}- unreformable Diet. Constitutionalism, therefore, had 
to be " particularist " — i.e., the Germans of each State aimed at making that State 
" constitutional " without reference to other German States or to Germany as a whole. 

(4) In Austria, the play of forces was singularly complex. In that Empire there were 
rival nationalities, German, Magyar, Slav of many kinds. The Imperial Government 
played off these forces one against the other, specially in the j'ear 1848, and in the end 
defeated them all withovit either idea! being attained except in a moderate degree. 

(5) Elsewhere. Of the other countries of Europe, Russia under Nicholas I. became 
strongly nationalist and strongly anti-constitutional, whereas Great Britain, while developing 
its unique system of " constitutional government," failed, and has continued to fail, in 
producing an}- sense of nationality for the " United Kingdom " as strong as that which 
had existed in the sometime kingdom of England. The ox\\y European countries, in fact, 
where nationalisin and constitutionalism worked together, were France and Belgium. 

IV. References. Illustrations and comments will be found in all the histories of Europe and of 
particular states, Phillips (Introduction) and Seigpnobos (Conclusion) being especially suggestive. The 
best cure for the common disease of using political terms rhetorically is to read books and essaj's by 
men who are both thinkers and men of affairs : e.g., Seeley, Introduction to Political Science (Series I., 
Lecture V., for " Libert}' ") ; A. Birrell, Res Jiidicntae for " Nationality " ; A. V. Dicey, Laii' of the Con- 
stitution for " constitutional government." These are all modern : for these ideas as actually conceived 
in this period, various sayings of Melternich and AVellington may profitably be culled from tlie manuals, 
to illustrate one school of thought, and the writings of Cobb'ett, Lieber, and Mazzini may be read 
for the other ; Sir G. C. Lewis, Use and Abuse 0/ Political Terms, aims at scientific impartiahty. For 
literary guidance, see George Brandes, Main Currents, and T. S. Omond, Romantic Triumph. 



L.oi^C. 



44 



EUROPEAN HISTORY, 1S14-1848. 
Biographical Appendix (1). 

This list contains the names of the most notable political personages of the period, and some indication where 
further information may be found about them. The sources of information mentioned are the answer-pages in this 
book and certain biographical studies and sketches which are more fully described in the author's " Problems and 
Exercises in English Histor\', Book G." To these may be added the ordinary biographical dictionaries and 
encyclopfedias. It is more profitable to make a detailed study of persons of first-rate importance (like Canning, 
Guizot, and Metternich) than to get up compressed biographies of all the lesser notabilities. 



Abd-el-Kader (1807-1883) : headed resistance to the French in 
Algeria, 1833-1847. 

Aberdeen, George Hamikon C'ordon, fourth Earl of (1784-1860); 
Britisli Ambassador with the Allied Army. 1813-14 ; Foreign 
Secretary, 1828-^0: Colonial Secretary, 18^4-35: Foreign Sec- 
retary, 1841-46; "Prime Minister, 1852-55." Life by Lord Stanmore 
(Low, 3/6). Study in P. M. Thornton, " Foreign Secretaries." 

Abispal, Henry O'Donnell, Count of (1770-1834) : Spanish military 
officer; revolted in 1819, but betrayed his party: opposed An- 
gouleme in 1823. Q. 7. 

Ali, Pasha of Janina (1744-1822) : Albanian chief: aluays at war 
with Turkey. Q. 11. 

Angouleme, Louis .\ntoinede Bourbon, Duke of (1775-1S44) : eldest 
son of Charles X. ; led French expedition into Spain, 1823 ; re- 
signed claims on crown when his father abdicated, and died 
childless. 

Arndt, Ernest Maurice (1769-1862). German patriotic poet; author 
of the song " What is the German Fatherland ? " 

ArtOis, Charles Philippe. Countof, King Charles X. of France (1757- 
1836): third son of Louis XVL ; opposed Napoleon at Lyons, 
1815: leader of Clerical party, 1815-24; King of France, 1824-30. 
Qq. 13. 14. 

Batthyany, Count Louis (1S09-49): Re\olutionarv leader in Hun- 
gary, 1848 ; executed. Q. 23. 

Beauharnais, Eugene de (1781-1824): Napoleon's step-son ; Napo- 
leon's A-icerov in Italv, 1805-14 ; his son Auguste was a candi- 
date lor the Belgian throne"!n .831. 

Beresford, William Carr. \'iscount and Marshal (1770-1856) : general- 
issimo of Portuguese forces during the Peninsular "War ; Regent 
of Portugal, 1815-24, Q. 7. 

Bernadotte, Jean Baptiste Jules (1764-1844)^ one of Napoleon's 
marshals ; appointed Prince Regent of Sweden ; retained his 
position b\- deserting Napoleon in 1813 : succeeded as Charles 
XIV,, 1818. Qq. 10, 29. 

Bernstorff, Coun" Christian (1769-1835): Swedish and afterwards 
Prussian statesman ; succeeded Hardenberg as Foreign Minister. 

Blanc, Jean Joseph Louis (1811-82): published "Organisation dc 
Travail, " 1840 ; Socialist leader in Paris, 1848 ; also wrote His- 
tories of France. 1830-40. and of the French Revolution ot 1848. 
Q. 18. 

Bliicher, Gebhard Lcbrcchl von, Prince of Wahlstatt (1742-1819) : 
Prussian general in WatcHoo campaign (1S15). 

Blum, Robert (1807-48): Austrian iournalist and revolutionary 
leader. 1848; membcrof German Pariiament, 1848 ; executed. 

Brandenburg, Frederick William. Count of (1792-1850) : appointed 
Prussian Minister President. November 1848. 

Broglie, .\chille ChaHes Leonce Victor, Duke of (1785-186)): de- 
fended Ney. 1815; French Foreign Minister 1832-34, and 1834-36. 

Canning, George (1770-1827): British Foreign S[vrcl;ir\ . 1822-27 ; 
Prime Minister. April-August 1827. I,:ve^ bv F. 1 1." llii.i. (\V. 
H. Allen. 2 6). and A. G. Staplkto.v (Parker: ifa -). Correspon- 
dence edited bv E. J. Stapletox. Studies in llazlilt. "Spirit of 
the Age," SirG. C. LliWM.s. " AJministr.ltions of Great Britain," 
and P. M. Thoknton. " Foreign Secretaries." Qq. 9-12, 30, 31, 

Canning, Stratford, X'iscount Stratford de RedcliffcTi-Sb-iSSo) : on 
m.-mv diplomatic missions, specially to Petersburg, 1825-26, 
and to Constantinople, 1842-58, where be became known as the 
" Great Eltchi." Life by S. Lane-Poole (2 vols.). 

CapodistriaB. John, Count of (1780-1831): Greek: at Congress of 
Vienna. 1815 ; Russian Foreign Secretary. 1816-22 ; President 
of Greece, 1827-31 ; assa.s.sinated. Oq. 11, 12. 

Carlos, Don (1788-1855): brother of Ferdinand VII. of Spain ; con- 
ducted war, maintaining his claims against Isabella of Spain 
■83."i-39- Qq. 17, 18. 

Carnot, Lazare Nicolas Marguerite (1753-1823): French statesman; 
worked for Napoleon, 1814-15 ; exiled by Louis XVIII. 

Castlereagh, Robert Stewart. Viscount, afterwards M.iiquess ol" 
Londonderry (1769-1822): British Foreign Sccretarv. 1812-22. 
Life hv Sir A. Ar.lsON (Blackwood, •, >ols. ,>./,.). C.rrespojidence 
edited bv his brother. Sir Chari.e.s Stewart (12 vols,) Studv in 
P. M, Thornton " Foreign Secretaries," Qq. 4, 8, 10. 

Cavalgnac, Louis Eugene (1802-^7): French General in Morea. 
In Algeria 1832-48, where he "became Governor-general ; de- 
feated insurrection in Paris, June 1848 ; unsuccessful candidate 
against Louis Napoleon for Presidency of French Republic. 

Cavour, CamilloBcnsi, Count (1810-1861) : established tlic newspaper. 
11 Risoy^imenlo, 1847; helped to obtain the Sardinian Constitu- 
tion, 1848; Prime Minister of Sardinia, 1852-1859. 1860-1. Lives 
bv BrANCHt. Massara. MazauE, J. A. R. Marriott, Countess 
Marttnenco Cesaresco. 



Chlopicki, Joseph (1770-1854) : Polish general and Dictator, 1830. 

Church, Sir Richard (1785-1873): British general; suppressed ban- 
ditti in Na|3les. 1815-20; first as volunteer, and later as general- 
issimo of Greek forces, did much to secure the independence of 
Greece : helped to secure the Greek Constitution of 1844. Life 
by .Mrs. E. M. Church. Q. 11. 

Codrington, Sir Edward (1770-1851); British admiral at Navarino, 
1827. Life by JOH.v BofRCHiER (2 vols.). Q. 12. 

Constantine, Grand Duke (1779-1811): Brother of .\lexander I.; 
\'iceroy of Poland ; momentary tsar. 1825. Q. 16. 

Coulaincourt, .^rmand .\ugustin Louis de, Duke of Vicenza (1772- 
1S27) : Napoleon's ambassador, 1814. 

Czartorysky, Prince ,\dam George (1770-1861); Polish patriot and 
Russian minister. His- "Memoirs and Correspondence with 
.\lexander I.," edited bv A. Giei.gad, is one of the chief authorities 
for the years 1800-25. Q. 27. 

Deak, Francis (1803-76): Hungarian patriot: leader in 1848.49. 
Wrote memoirs, edited b^ M. E. Gra.nt-Di;ff (Macmillan, 12,6) ; 
anonymous life !by ArnoLd Forsterj. Q. 23. 

Decazes, Elie, Duke of (1780-1860) : French Minister of Police, 181 ; ; 
Chief Minister, 1818-20, Q, 13, 

DeSBOlles, Jean Joseph Paul .Augustin, Marquess (1767-1828) ; m.ajor- 
general in French National Guard, 1814-15 ; Foreign Minister, i8ig. 
Q. 13. 

DiebitSCh, Count Sabalkanskv (1785-1851): Russian general against 
Turkey, 1829 ; against Poland, 1831.' - 

EotYiJS, Baron Joseph (1813-71); Hungarian patriot ; leader in 1848, 

Eapartero, Baldomero, Dukeof \'llloria(i7Q2-i879) : Spanish general 
and Progresslsta ; ousted Christina from the Regency, 1840-4-! ; 
exiled in England till 1854. 

Esterhazy, Prince Paul Anton (1786-1866): succeeded .Metternich as 
.\ustrlan Foreign Minister. 1848. 

Fouche, Joseph, Duke of Otranto (. 765-1820) ; served Louis X\'HI. 

and Napoleon till 1S16. His Mcn'ioirs have been translated Into 

English: studv in Brougham's "Statesmen of the Reign of 

George III. " "Q. 13. 
Fourier, Franrois Marie Charies (,772-1857) ; French Socialist writer. 

LIfein F. Aru:o, " Blographicsof Diitinguished Scientific Men" ; 

see loo J, S. Mti.i,, " Political Economy." Bk. II., ch. i. Q. 18. 
Gagern, Helnrich Wllliclm August, FicMic 

ofGcrniiin Bursclienschafl : Prime MIn 

President of German PaHianicnl, 184S 
Gaj, Ljudevlt (1810-72) ; Croat politlchiii :ind jomiuilist. Q. 20. 
GiObertl. Vincenzo(iSui-:;2): Italian patriot, priest and theologian: 

exiled i8i5: wrote in 1845 " Primato Morale e Civile degll 

Italiani" (" .Moral and Political Headship of Italv"), looking to 

Pap.acy to assume headship of Italv ; Sardinian Prime Minister 

1848-49; exiled. O. 20. 



1(1799-1880): 



lit He 



!-Da 



stadt ; 



olutic 



leade 



Gulzot, Francois Plcn-c Guillai 
statesman; held various otfii 
Prime Minister i84Cv4S: lei 
Sorbonne. Wrote Memoirs ;ind 
English Histoi-v (nn.st ofuliichhav 
.Vlison, J, S. Mill, \V. N. Senior, etc 



(1787-1874); French Liberal 

1814-20 and 1853-40; French 

>n Modern rfi'story at the 



orks 



Fri 



ind 



e been translated). Studies by 
.. Qq. 17, 18. 

fteru-ards Prince, von (1750- 
Q. 6. 

Hypsilanti [or Vpsilanti]. Prince .\lexander (1792-1828): Greek; 
Russian general ; invaded Roumania, 1821 ; retired into Transyl- 
vania ; imprisoned. Q. 11. 
Ibrahim Pasha (1789-1841): .adopted son of Mehemet Ali, \'ali of 
Egypt ; for whom he conducted war in Greece. 1824-27, and in 
Syria, 1831-1839. Qq, 11,12,17. 
Jahn, Frederick Louis (177S-1852): " Tiirnvater," /.,■.. founder of 
Gymnasia In Germany. 

Kamptz. Karl Chrlstoph Albert Ilelnrich von (1769-1S49): Prussian 
politician: Director of Ministry of Police. 1817. 

Kanaris. Constantine (1790-1877): Greek sea capl:iin in war of 

independence. 
Klapka, George (1820-1892): Hungarian gener.al in 1848-49; escaped 

to England and wrote an account of "The War of Independ- 

ence In Hungary." 
Korais. Adamantios (174S-1838) : Greek man of letters ; inventor of 

the modern literary Greek language — a compromise between a 

" classical " Greek and the Romaic. O. II. 



C.N.B. 



45 



EUROPEAN HISTORY, 1814-1848. 
Biographical Appendix (2). 



Kossuth, Louis (1S02-94); Hungarian patriot; commenced journal- 
ist, 1841 ; leader in 1848 ; escaped to England, where he wrote 
'■Memoirs of My Exile " (Cassell, jo;6). There is a "copious 
memoir" of him in "Hungary: its History and Revolutions" 
(Bell, 36) ; and some account in F. W. Newman, " Reminiscences 
ot Two Exiles " ; also in J^ez'ieivqf Revieivs, and other such maga- 
zines and papers for 1894. 

Kotzebue, August Frederick Ferdinand von (1761-1819): dramatist 
and writer, employed by Alexander of Russia to report on German 
affairs ; murdered by Sand, Qq, 6, 13, 25; 27. 

Lafayette, Marie Jean Paul Roch Yves Gilbert Mohir, Marquess of 
(17,57-1834) : took part in the American Revolution, and the French 
Revolutions of 1789 and 1830. Memoirs edited by M. P. D. de 
NoAiLLES (translated) ; life by Bayard Tuckermann (Low, 2 
vols., 12/-); study in Brougham. " Statesmen of George HL's 
Reign," and in Edith Sichel, " Household of the Lafayettes " 
(Constable, 6/-), Q. U. 

Laflltte, Jacques (1768-1844): Governor of the Bank of France : took 
a leading part in the Revolution of July ; French Finance Minister, 
1830. Q, 14. 

Lamartine, Alphonse (1792-1869) : opposed Guizot ; leading member 
of the French Provisional Government, 1848 ; wrcite various 
brilliant but misleading sketches of French History (all trans- 
lated in Bohn's Standard Library, 8 vols, each 3/6), Study in 
Alison's Essays, vol. H. 

Latour, General Count Theodore (1780-1S48) : Austrian Minister of 
War, 1848; murdered, 

Ledru-RoUin, Alexandre Auguste (1807-74): wrote "Appel aux 
Travailleurs," 1846, in favour of universal suffrage ; French revo- 
lutionary leader, 1848. 
, Louis, Louis Dominique, Baron (1755-1837): as French Finance 
IMinister, 1S15, 1818, 1831-32, did much to establish the Bourbon 
Restoration and the Orleanist Monarchy respectively, 

Maassen, Karl Georg (1769-1834): Prussian Finance Minister; 
founder of the Zollverein. 

Manin, Daniele (1804-57;: Venetian revolutionary leader, 1848. 

Martlgnac, Jean Baptiste Silvere Gaye, Viscount of (1776-1S32) : 
with Angoulenic in Spain, 1823 : became viscount, 1824 ; mode- 
rate Liberal ; Minister, 1828-30. Qq. 13, 14. 

Mazzini, Giuseppe (1805 ?-i872): born at Genoa; Italian patriot ; ex- 
pelled, 1831 : formed the party of " Young Italy" ; expelled from 
Marseilles. 1832-33 ; went first to Switzerland, then to London. 
1836 : in Italy, 1848-J9. Selections from his " Life and Writings " 
(6 vols.) are contained in a volume of the Scott Library (1/6), 
there are also studies in A. R. Marriott, "Makers of Modern 
Italy" (Macmillan, 2/6) and Countess Martinengo Cesaresco, 
■■ Italian Characters in the Age of Unification." Q. 20. 

Hehemet Ali (1769-1849): Viceroy of Egypt, 1809-44; sent troops 
to help Sultan in the Greek war of independence ; warred in 
Syria, 1S31-39. Qq. 11, 12, 17, 31. 

Melbourne, William Lamb, Viscount (1779-1848): British Home 
Secretary, 1830-34: Premier (with short break) 1834-41. Life 
by H. DUNCKLEV (Low, 3,6), and W. M. T. TORRENS (Ward, 
Lock, 3/6) ; papers edited by L. C. Sanders ; study in A, Hay- 
ward's " Eminent St.itesmen." 

Metternich, Clement Wenceslas Lothaire, Count, afterwards Prince 
(1773-1859): Austrian State Chancellor, 1S09-48. Life by G, B. 
Malleson (W. H. Allen, 2/6) : much better (in French) by 
Charles de Mazade. His Memoirs, extending to 1835, have 
been translated by Mrs. A. Napier and B. W. Smith '5 vols.). 
Study in A. Hayward's " Eminent Statesmen." Qq. 3-11, 21. 

Miguel, Dom Maria Evarist (1802-66): brother of John IV. King 
of Portugal ; headed the Clerical partv in the civil war of 1828- 
34. Qq. 17, 18. 

Mole, Count Louis Mathieu de {1780-1855) : French Foreign Minister 
1830-31 ; Prime Minister, 1836-39. 

Monroe, James (1758-1831) : Fifth President of the United States of 
America, 1817-1825, during the "Era of Good Feeling"; author 
of the Message of 2 December, 1823, protesting against European 

Montmorency, Matthieu Jean Faicite de Montmorency-Laval, 
Viscovmt, afterwards Duke of (1766-1826) : French Foreign 
Minister, 1822. 

Murat, Joachim, Grand Duke of Berg. King of Naples(i767 or 1771 to 
1815): Kingof Naples 1808-15; shot, October 1815. Q. 27. 

Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) : Corsican by birth ; First Consid, 
1799-1804; Emi^eror of the French, 1804-14, 1815; fought 
"Waterloo campaign, 1815 ; exiled to St, Helena, The best short 
lives in English are by J. R. Seeley (Seelev, 6/-), and W. 
O Connor Morris (Putnam, c/-) : there are longer lives by 
W. C. Hazlitt, Sir Walter Scott, W. M. Sloane, and J. H. 
Ro.SE ; also studies by Alison. Jeffrey, and Emerson. There are 
accounts of the Waterloo campaign by Chesney, Gardner, Hous- 
saye, O'Connor, Morris, J. C. Ropes, Siborne, etc. His life at 
St. Helen.a is the subject of many books, e.g., Lord Rosebery, 
"Napoleon ; The Last Phase" (Humphreys, 7s 6d. net). Oq. 1, 
2, 31. 

Napoleon Bonaparte. Charles Louis (1808-73) : son of Napoleon's 
brother Louis; with Carbonari in Italy, 1831 ; attempt at Strass- 
burg, I 36 ; attempt at Boulogne, 1840 ; in prison at Ham, 1840- 
46; President of the French Republic, 1848; Emperor of the 
French, 1832-70. Life b\- Bi.anchard Jerrold ; see too Victor 
Hugo " History of a Crime." 



Nesselrode, Carl Robert, Count of (1 



a): Russian Cha 



cllor. 



Ney, Michel. Duke of Elchingen, Prince of the Moskawa (1769-1815): 

deserted to Napoleon 1815 ; executed by l.ouis XVHI. Q. 2. 
Palmella, Dom Pedro dc S'ousa-Holstcin, Duke of (1781-1850); at 

Vicnnii, 1S14 ; often in office as Liberal Minister under 'Maria, 

Queen of Portui;.il 
Palmerston, Henr> John Temple. Viscount (1784-.866) : British 

Secretary at \^^'lr, 1809-28; Foreign Secretary, 1830-41, 1846- 

1851, Lii'es by L. C. Sanders (W. H. Allen, 2/6), Marquess 

OF LORNE (Low, 3'6!. E. Ashley (2 vols, o.p.) ; studies in 

Walter Bagehot. " Biographical Studies, " and P. M.Thornton 

"Foreign Secretaries." Qq. 17-20. 
Peel, Sir Robert (1788-1850) : Secretary for Ireland, 1812-18 ; Home 

Sccretarv, 1822-27, 1828-1830; Premier, 1834-35, 1839, 1841-46. 

Short lives by J. R. Thl'RSFIELD 'Macmillan, 2/6) ; F. C. Mon- 
tague (W. 'H. Allen, 2 '6); Justin McCarthy (Low, 3/6); 

longer biographies by Lord Dalling and Bulwer, Guizot, and C, 

S. Parker (3 vols the standard life) ; also studies by Bagehot, 

Brougham, "and Ewald. 
Pepe, Guglielmo (1783-1855) : Revolutionary leader in Naples 1820-21 

and 1848-49. His own accounts of these movements have not 

b^en trans lated into English. Q. 7. 
Perier, Casimir (1777-1832) : French 

leader, 1830 ; Minister, i: 
Pollgnac, Armand Jules Mi 

of (1771-1847) : French Ambassador 

French Prime Minister, April-July 1831 
Radetzky, loseph Wenzel (1766-1858) : Austrian General, 

Goiernor-General in Italy, 1831-56. Qq. 21, 22. 
Radziwill, Michael (1778-1850) : Pohsh general, 1830. 
Reshid Pasha (1802-18.^8) : Turkish Ambassador in Loiidc 

M;iii>tcr to Abdul-Medjid II,, attempted to introduce 

lin;ince ;uid administration, and supported British infli 
Richelieu, Armand Emmanuel Sophie Septimanie du PI 

of (1766-1822) : French Minister, 1815-18 and 1820-21. 
Rlego, Rafael del (1785-1823) : Spanish Revolutionary oflfic 

executed. 
Saint Simon, Claude Henri. Count of (1760-18: 

philosopher. 
Schwarzenberg, Prince Felix (1800-52) : Austrian Minister, 1848- 

S'- 
Sebastian!, Horace Framjois, Count (1776-1851) ; French Foreign 

minister, 1830-35. 
Soult, Nicol.as Jean deDieu (1769-1851) : French War Minister, 1814 ; 

Joined Napoleon, 18:5; War Minister, 1830-47; Chief Minister, 

1839-40. Q. 1. 
Stein, Henry Frederick Charles, Freiherr > 

ised Prussia after Jena ; exile in Ru 

national sentiment against Napoleon, 

J. R. Seelev, "Life and Time of Steit 



id Revolutionary 
Q, 18. 

lius. Count, afterwards Duke 
Great Britain, 1823-29 ; 
Qq. 13, 14. 






om (i7S7-'83i): reorgan- 

;sia : stirred up German 

Best book on him is Sir 

(Camb. Press. 3 vols., 

36,'-). Q. 2. 

Szechenyl, Stephen, Count of (1792- ? ) : Hungarian noble and 
patriot, 1831-4S; opposed to Kossuth's extremer ideas; went 
mad, 184S. 

Talleyrand-Perigord, Charles Maurice de. Bishop of Autun, 
Prince of Benevento (1754-1838) : President of French Provisional 
Government, 1814-15; at Congress of Vienna, 1814-5; revo- 
lutionary leader, 1830; Ambassador to Great Britain, 1831-37. 
His " Correspondence with Louis XVI'I. during the Congress 
of Vienna" has been translated into English by M. G. Pallain 
(2 vols.) ; hi.s Memoirs, edited by the Due de Broglie, have been 
translated by R. Ledos de Beaufort and Mrs. A. Hall, (3 vols.). 
There are studies by Brougham and by Lord Dalling and 
Bulwer. Qq. 1,2,15. 

Thiers, Louis Adolphe (1797-1877): French joumaHst, who was a 
chief wirepuller in the Revolution of July 1830; minister of the 
Interior, 1832, afterwards Foreign minister ; in opposition, 1836- 
40 : 1840 Foreign Minister (for six months) : opposed the Re- 
\'olution of 1848 ; afterwards President of the 'Third Republic ; 
wrote long histories ot the first French Revolution and of France 
under the Consulate and Empire. There is a short life of him 
as a writer by A. DE Remusat : also political studies by A, Hay- 
ward and W. N. Senior. 0. 18. 



Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, Duke of (1769-1852) : British General 
in India and the Peninsula ; at Congress of Vienna, 1815 ; in the 
Waterloo campaign, 1815 ; ambassader at Ai.\-la-Chapelle, 1818, at 
Verona, 1822, in Russia," 1826: Premier, 1828-30, and November- 
December, 1834: Foreign Minister, 1835-6: ii'i the Cabinet, 1841- 
46. There are short lives by G, Hooper (Macmillan, 2/6), G. 
R. Gleig (Longmans, 3/6), and R. Waite (Longmans, 3'6) ; 
longer lives by C. D. Yonge. Sir Herbert Maxwell, and Arthur 
Griffiths: also military studies by O'Connor Morris, and F. 
Maurice. Qq, 1, 2, 12. 

WindischgratZ, Alfred, Prince (1787-1862): Austrian General in 
Bohemia and Vienna, 184S, Qp, 21, 23. 

Zumala-Carreguy, Thomas (i789-i8{5): Basque leader against 
"■ ■ ■ of theCarlis ' " 



Napolc- 






ssfuloft 



als, .S33-1835 



46 



EUROPEAN History, 1814-iSj 

Additional Questions.* 



A. — For First Reading : Chronological. 

^;}. What were the main queslions raised at the Con- 
gress of Vienna ? Explain the attitude assumed by the 
chief Powers at the Cong^ress, and g'ive a summary of its 
results. 

34. Explain how serious dissensions arose in the 
Conj^ress of Vienna. 

35. Is it true that in the Cong-ress of Vienna the 
interests of dynasties were treated with more considera- 

ion than the wishes of peoples? 

36. What attention was paid to the principle of 
nationality in («) the Congress of Vienna, (b) the Second 
Treaty of Pans ? 

37. Describe the objects and chief actions of the Holy 
Alliance, 

38. What were the real and what were the avowed 
motives of the Holy Alliance ? 

39. Compare the aims and progress of Liberal ideas 
in France and Spain between 1818 and iS^s- 

40. Who were the chief native patriots and who the 
most distinguished Philhellenes in the Greek War o( 
Independence? Summarise events to the Proclamation 
of the Monarchy. 

41. Explain how some European Powers differed in 
views but acted in concert with reg^ird to Greek 
Independence. 

42. Show how the relations among the Great Powers 
oi Europe compelled some of them to back up the Greeks 
in their efforts to gain independence. 

43. Sketch the course of events which led to the 
Treaty of Adrianople. Why did not Russia get more by 
that treaty? 

44. "CharlesX. of Francecontrasts with LewisXVIIl. 
as James II. of England with Charles II." Draw out 
the contrast with jegard to the two kings of France. 

45. .\ccount for the failure to maintain the union 
between Holland and Belgium established by the Con- 
gress of Vienna. 

46. How did Belgium become an independent State ? 

47. Give some account of the opinions, character, 
and influence of the first King of the Belgians. 

48. Sketch the effects upon («) Russiji, {b) Germany, 
of the French Revolution of 1830. 

49. What was the political condition of the Poles 
immediately after the Congress c)f Vienna, and how was 
it subsequently modified ? 

50. "The Quadruple Alliance was an answer to the 
Conference of Miinchengriitz." Explain this. 

51. How did absolute monarchy become impossible 
for Spain after the death of Ferdinand VII. ? 

52. What noteworthy ministers served under Louis 
Philippe? Review rapidly the reign. 

53. Examine the chief elements of strength and 
weakness in the government of Louis Philippe ^md the 
causes of its ultimate downfall. 

54. Trace the growth of discontent against the 
Orleanist Government in France from 1837 to 1848. 

55. What were the elements making for union in 
Germany about 1840? 



B. — For Revision : Topical. 

56. Sketch the career of Bernadotte as a soldier 01 
fortune and as statesman and sovereign. 

57. What influences shaped the character in youth or 
the Emperor Alexander I. ? Who towards the close 01 
his career were his most intimate and confidential 
advisers ? Attempt a short general appreciation of his 
place in the history of Russia and of Europe. 

58. What were the circumstances of the accession of 
the Emperor Nicholas I. to the Russian throne? What 
early triumphs of the reign in Asia are marked by the 
Peace of Turkmanchai ? 

59. Contrast the influence of Metternich and Canning 
on European affairs. 

60. Trace the career of Prince Louis Napoleon down 
to the time when he was elected President of the French 
Republic. What, at that date, was the current estimate 
of his character and capacities ? 

61. Give some account of the rise and importance or 
Mehemet Ali. 

62. How did the ambitious policy of Mehemet Ali 
lead to disputes among the European Powers, and how 
were those disputes ended? 

63. What led to the French Expedition of 1830 against 
Algiers? Follow the history of conquest and colonisation 
in Algiers down to the end of the reign of Louis Philippe. 

64. Compare the revolution of July with that or 
February in regard to their causes and their results. 

65. Trace the influence of nationalist feeling on the 
movements of 1830 and r848 outside France. 

66. .\bout 1 8 1 5 the Ottoman Empire had been declared 
to be moribund. What causes helped it to a fresh lease 
of life ? 

67. How far was the principle of nationality concerned 
[a) in the formation of the kingdoms of Greece and of 
Belgium, and (b) in the extension of Switzerland ? 

68. What is the importance in the history of Switzer- 
land of the last decade of your period ? 

69. How far mav the formation and the dissolution 
of the Sonderbund be regarded as events of European 
importance ? Can you cite any modern parallels? 

70. How do you explain the decline in the eighteenth 
century of the Imperial dignity and ideal, and the renewal 
and popularity of Imperialism in the nineteenth century ? 

71. Note the chief landmarks in the relations between 
Hungary and the House of Hapsburg from the death of 
Joseph II, to the end of your period, 

72. Estimate the extent of Austrian influence in Italy 
after 1815, and trace the rise of the opposition to it up 
to 1848. 

73. Account for the growth of Italian patriotism and 
llustrate its influence in the later part of your period. 

74. What progress was made between 1815 and 1848 
in (he movement towards the unification of Italy? 

75. What were the general features of the Socialist 
movement in Europe during the first half of the nineteenth 
century ? 

76. What events in Europe facilitated the establish- 
ment of independent states in Central and Southern 
.America ? 

77. In what wars did the United States of America 
engage between the years 1800 and 1848? What were 
the provocations in each case, and the results ? 



' Extracted froii 



Kxaniination Papers, by permission of t lie Co 
Stationery Office, 



) trotter of His Majesty's 



A BRIEF VOCABULARY OF POLITICAL TERMS. 

Note. — ^These political terms, some general, some particular, occur in most accounts of European History, 1814- 
1848. They are not always as simple as they look ; and the student will do well to make sure that he knows the 
meaning of" each, and can distinguish between "synonyms." Terms in foreign languages are shown in italics. 



Abdication 

Abolitionist 

Absolute 

Absolutist 

Act 

Administration 

Agitation 

Agrarian 

Alliance 

Ambassador 

Ancien Regitne 

Anglican 

Annexation 

Arbitrary 

Aristocrac}' 

Army 

Articles 

Assembly 

Association 

Balance of Power 

Barricades 

Barrier 

Benthamism 

Bishop 

Blockade 

Bourgeois 

Bourgeois King 

Bribery 

Brigand 

Bundesstaat 

Bu rschenschaft 

Cabinet 

Canton 

Carbonari 

Cardinal 

Carlist 

Catholic 

Centre 

Chamber 

Chambrc Introxi- 

vable 
Chancellor 
Charter 
Chartism 
Church 
Citizen King 
Civil 

Civilisation 
Clergy 
Coalition 
Code 
Colony 
Combination 
Commerce 
Commission 
Committee 
Communism 



Compact 
Concert of 

Europe 
Concession 
Confederate 
Confederation 
Conference 
Congregation 
Congress 
Conscience 
Conscript 
Conspiracy 
Constituent 
Constitution 
Constitutional 
Continental 

System 
Convention 
Corn Law 
Corruption 
Corsair 
Cortes 
Cossack 
Count 
Coup d'Etat 
Court 
Criminal 
Customs Union 
Czar 
Debate 
Declaration 
Decree 
Delegate 
Democracy 
Denunciation 
Deputy 
Despotic 
Diet 

Diplomacy 
Dismemberment 
Dissenter 
Dissident 
Divine Right 
Doctrinaire 
Duke 
Dynasty 
Eastern 

Question 
Elective 
Emancipation 
Emigrant 
Emigre 
Emperor 
Empire 
Equality before 

the Law 
Establishment 



Excommuni- 
cation 

Executive 
Commission 

Expansion 

Federal 

Final Act 

Finance 

Fourierism 

Four Powers 

Franchise 

Fraternity 

Free 

Freedom 

Free Trade 

Fundamental 

Galilean 

German Parlia- 
ment 

Government 

Grand Army- 
Grand Duke 

Guerilla 

Hereditar)- 

Hetairia 

Hierarch}' 

Holy Alliance 

Holy O'&c^ 

Holy Places 

Holy Roman 
Empire 

Hundred Days 

Hundred Years 

Ideology 

lllyrism 

Imperial 

Independence 

Industrial 

Infidel 

Inquisition 

Insurrection 

Interim 

International 

Intervention 

Invasion 

Islam 

Jacobin 

Janissary 

Jesuit 

July Monarchy 

Jury 

Kaiserlich 

Khalif 

King 

Kingdom 

Klepht 

Koran 



Laity 

Landiiiehr 

Language 

Law 

Law, Civil 

Lay 

Left 

Legislation 

Legitimacy 

Legitimist 

Liberal 

Liberation 

Liberty 

Machinery 

Magyar 

Manchester 
School 

Manhood Suff- 
rage 

March Laws 

Mediation 

Mediatisation 

Middle Classes 

Minister 

Ministerial Res- 
ponsibility 

Missionary 

Monroe Doctrine 

Monsieur 

Moslem 

Mussalman 

Napoleonic 
Legend 

Nation 

National 

,, Assembly 

,, Guard 

,, Workshops 

Nationality- 
Navy 

Negro 

Nobles 

Non-interven- 
tion 

Note Secrete 

Obscurantism 

Occupation 

Old Regiyne 

Oppression 

Orders 

Order in Council 

Ordinance 

Orthodox 

Padishah 

Panslavist 

Papacy 

Papal 



Parliament 

Parliamentarian 

Parliamentary 

Particularism 

Partisan 

Party 

Pasha 

Patriarch 

Patriotism 

Pavilion Marsan 

Peace 

Peasant Pro- 
prietor 

Peer 

People 

Persecution 

Pirate 

Plebiscite 

Plenipotentiary 

Police 

Political 

Pope 

Popish 

Porte 

Pragmatic 
Sanction 

Premier 

Prerogative 

President 

Press 

Prime Minister 

Prince 

Privileges 

Prohibition 

Proletariat 

Propaganda 

Property Quali- 
fication 

Prosecution 

Protection 

Protestant 

Provisional Govt 

Punctation 

Quadrilateral 

Quadruple 

Race 

Rebellion 

Reconstruction 

Red Republican 

Reform 

Regent 

Religion 

Representative 

Repression 

Republic 

Restoration 

Revolt 



Revolution 
Right 
Rights 
Romanticism 
Ro3alist 
Scrutin de Liste 
Secretary 
Self-Government 
Senate 
Serfdom 
Sick Man 
Slavery- 
Slave Trade 
Socialism 
Soldier 
Sovereign 
Sovereignty 
Spanish 

Marriages 
Staatenbund 
State 
Subject 
Suffrage 
Sultan 
Suppression 
Tariff 
Taxation 
Third Estate 
Three Days 
Tiers Etat 
Toleration 
Tractarian 
Treaty 
Tribune 
Tribute 
Triple 

Triune Kingdom 
Tsar 

Tugendbund 
Turnvater 
Twelve Points 
.Tyrant 
Ultra 

Ultramontanism 
Unconstitutional 
Union, Complete 

,, Personal 

, , Real 
United States 
Utilitarianism 
Veto 
Viceroy 
Vor-Parlament 
White Terror 
Young Czech 

Italy 
Zollverein 



Lindsey. C.N.B. 



48 



IMPORTANT NEW EDUCATIONAL SERIES IN PROCESS OF PUBLICATION. 

Eight volumes, quarto (10.1 x Sin.), each containing' 80—100 pp. 
Price 2/- or 3/- nett each. Special Subscription Terms for the Series. 



Problems and 6xmi$e$ in English iiistory 

BY 

J. S. LINDSEY. 
OBJECTS OF THE SERIES. 

To show Students and Teachers of History Each Book contains 

What Books to Read 70-75 pp. Select Classified 

Bibliographies. 
What Subjects to Study ... - 60-80 Typical Questions. 

300 Notable Topics. 

How to use the knowledge gained by reading 60-80 Complete Answers 

with 

Hints and References. 
The Complete Series of Eight Books contain (besides other useful matter) : 

40 pages of Practical Bibliographies — described by the Athenaum as " sound." 
16 ,, Typical Questions (available in separate form as Test Papers). 
500 „ Specimen Answers — characterised by the Bookman as " sensible." 

PLAN OF THE SERIES. 

NETT PRICES. 

X Set (following the period divisions adopted by the Oxford Local Delegacy). Ordiuaiy. inter- 

2" (A. io66-i3gg (March, 1902). Oxford Local, July, 1902 ; College of Preceptors, Senior, 2/- 3/-' 

■2^1 igoi, 1902; London Intermediate Arts (Honours), 1902. 

gt; jB. 1399-1603 (Ready). College of Preceptors, Senior, 1901, 1902; Cambridge Higher 2/- 3/- 

£ ,^' I Local, June, 1902. 

"5-.^ /C. 1603-1715 (March, 1902). Oxford Local, July, 1902; London Intermediate Arts 2/- 3/- 

gjj J (Honours), July, 1903. 

s""^ 1 D. 1715-1820 ('JoKMar)', 7902J. College of Preceptors, 1901, 1902 ; London Intermediate 2/- 3/- 

O ' (Pass), July, 1902; Irish Intermediate, Preparatory Grade, June, 1902. 

Y Set (following the period divisions adopted by the Cambridge Local Syndicate). 

E. 4ng-i$og (In preparation). 

F. i5og-i6S8 (In preparation). Irish Intermediate, Senior Grade, 1902 ; London Inter- 2/- 3/- 

mediate Arts (Pass), 1902. 

G. 1688-1832 (November, 1901). Cambridge Local, December, 1901 ; Oxford and Cam- 2/- 3/- 

bridge Joint Board, July, 1902 ; Irish Intermediate, Preparatory and 
Middle Grades, June, 1902 ; Cambridge General, 1901, 1902. 
H. B.C. ?-igoo (December, 1901). Scottish Leaving Certificate; King's Scholarship; 3/- 4/- 

Oxford Second Public Examination (Pass), Group B. 
This Book contains 80 Questions and Answers (half before and half after 1603) dealing 

■with the Essentials of British History. 

Total Cost, nett . 17/- 25/- 
Special Subscription Terms (till 31 March, 1902), /oi^/ree . 15/- 22/6 

SPECIAL VOLUMES IN ACTIVE PREPARATION. 

Matriculation Note-Book of English History (to 1700) : adapted from Book H. . 2/- 3/- 

Certificate Note-Book of European History, 1814-1848 : for English Teachers' Certificate 2/- 3/- 

Examination, July, 1902. Containing Introductory Sketch, Chronological Synopsis, Select 
Bibliography, Glossary, Short Biographies, Topics, and 32 Specimen Answers. 

CAMBRIDGE: HEFFER AND SONS 

AND OF ALL BOOKSELLERS 



6 ^ 



SPECIMEN ANSWER PAGE— BOOK G. 

THE TWO UNIONS: CIRCUMSTANCES. 

•S _ I. Question 983. indicate the chief differences in the circumstances under which the ™ 

^ 3 Scottish and the Irish Unions were effected. W 

^ S » 

§ 'o II. Jottings. Circumstances either "immediate" or "ultimate." " Immediate " circumstances include 3* 

"g^ >- recent instances of friction (ecclesiastical or commercial), or attempts at separation : the methods adopted to < 

g "^ effect the Unions; also pressure of international complications and need of unity. "Ultimate" circum- 0_ 

^ •" stances include the length and nature of the constitutional connexion between the uniting kingdoms and c 

•^ Q their general condition — political, economic, and social. 3 

5q .o Immediate circnnistaiices. (i) 1707 : England makes concessions to avoid separation, rendered probable by ft 

.s "S irritation over Darien failure, (ii) 1800: Ireland punished for attempt at separation, 'g8. n 

:H S Ultimate circumstances : Anglo-Scottish Union satisfactory : Brito-Irish unsatisfactory. Why ? g 

.0 s ^ 

,^ « III. Answer. The circumstances under which the Legislative Unions of 1707 and g- 

H Z 1 80 1 were efFedled fall naturally into two groups : the immediate circumstances which a> 

J!I '^ occasioned, and the ultimate or remoter circumstances which conditioned, the two unions. J2. 

a 2 . . . >< 

c 'S (i) Immediate Circumstances. Both Unions took place during the course of great .^ 

tS § foreign wars, mainly against France, and were primarily designed to increase the unity j^ q 

^ "S^ and strength, offensive and defensive, of the British Isles, regarded as an international tj '^ 

§ ^ Power. But these resemblances only mask deeper differences. The Anglo-Scottish ft ■-• 

■G^ ■-§ Union took place after the Scots had made a serious threat to sever the personal union ; ^ p* 

^ -^ and Queen Anne's advisers thought it worth while for England to persuade, rather than ^ >< 

g ~ try to compel, the Scots to desist from this attempt. This Union, therefore, was the re- a" "o 

Cei o suit of bargaining between two kingdoms meeting on equal terms, in which the stronger " ^ 

I ~^ southern kingdom deemed it expedient to give way on all the more important points at ^ 

'~^ U" issue. The Brito-Irish Union took place after the suppression of an armed attempt by a 3 to 

•^ "o considerable party in Ireland to break loose from Great Britain, with the aid of the foreign ^ 5' 

° -o enemies of the latter Power. Naturally, therefore, the latter Union differed from the g p; 

^ former in being a punishment and a restraint, rather than a bribe or a bargain. ;;i £| 

-g ^ The documents embodying the Unions bear witness to this " chief difference " between re S' 

ml ;j them : in the Anglo-Scottish Union, the term "treaty" is very prominent, and the whole m ,;„ 

"^ '~ tone is that of two independent kingdoms meeting on equal terms ; while in the Brito- 'f^ ^ 

->^ § Irish Union the term " treaty " is much less prominent than the term " imperial," and the g J^ 

§ 'gj general tone is that of the compulsory swallowing up of the smaller kingdom by the larger, a •* 

S -g The opponents of both Unions loudly accused the Government at Westminster of carrying ^' ^ 

E :g their measures by corrupt means, but these charges have been much more persistent in ft 3^ 

<-• g the case of the later Union. This difference, however, between the circumstances of the f " 

So 5 two Unions — if it really exists — can readily be explained by the great development of ^ g* 

o^ g the art of parliamentary " management " during the eighteenth century. D. "^ 

q ^ (ii) Ultimate Circumstances. In the deeper and more remote circumstances x ^ 

A K which affedted the two Unions, the chief differences appear to fall into three main groups ; S fj' 

- |j (i) National Unity. The kingdoms of England and Scotland had each attained a 3' ^. 

to i very considerable degree of unity before they came together in personal union (1603), but |J ^ 

P S Ireland began to be affedted (and still further divided) by English influence before it had V> ^ 

^ ..^.^ independently attained national unity. jc 

^ S (2) Length of Connexion. Ireland had been coming piecemeal under English 3 

C "g control ever since the reign of Henry II : Scotland, though often under English influence g 

■« g and occasionally under English control, had not come into enduring political partnership f^ 

g .^ with England till 1603, and had then joined England {a) as a whole, (b) on equal terms. ^^ 

bo § (3) Church. England and Scotland, though divided in church-government, had first tt 

^ -2 come together through, and found their closest tie in, a common Protestantism. Ireland "^ 

^ ^ was both divided against itself and separated from Great Britain by the adherence of the -t 
majority of its inhabitants to Roman Catholicism. 

It is mainly owing to the great differences in the circumstances of the two Unions in 3 

these three respecfts that the earher Union has been on the whole satisfadtory in its results, w 

while the later Union has not proved satisfadtory to anybody. To these differences some r* 

might add differences in " Race," but it is doubtful whether marked racial differences can g' 

be traced in the British Isles, or can be made to correspond with their historic divisions. p- 

ft 

IV. References. For the terms see G. C. Lee, §§194, 208 : for the circumstances see any good history, TJ 
especially Lecky (first and last volumes), R. S. Rait, "The Scottish Parliament"; J. T. Ball, "Historical 
Review of Legislative Systems Operative in Ireland, 1171-1800." 

79 



;^robIems anli e[]rerctse0 in iEitstorj 

By J. S. LINDSEY. 



SCHEME OF THE 
X SET — English History. 

1066- 1 399. Ready, March, 1902. 

1399-1603. Published, jfune, igoi. 

1603-1715. Ready, March, 1902. 

1715-1820. Ready, January, 1902. 



A. 
B. 
C. 
D. 



N.B. — This arrangement is adapted to the period 
divisions at present adopted by the Oxford Local 
Delegates, the College of Preceptors, and the Board 
of Education, 



BRITISH SERIES. 

Y SET— English History. 

E. 449-1509. In preparation. 

F. 1509-1688. In preparation. 

G. 1688-1832. Ready, November, 1901. 
H. B.C. P-I900. Ready, December, 1901. 

N.B. — This arrangement is adapted to the period 
divisions at present adopted by the Cambridge 
Local Syndicate, and the Oxford and Cambridge 
Joint Board. 



ORDER FORM. 



To Messrs. To W. Heffer and Sons, 

Booksellers, ^^ ^^ p^^^^ ^^^^^ 

Cambridge. 

Herewith I enclose cheque, postal order, for £ s. d. in payment of : — 
i. Subscription for the whole series, as described above. 

For Eight Books, A-H (ordinary edition) 15 o 

,, ,, ,, (interleaved edition) ...... 22 6 

For Seven Books (excluding B or G, which I have), ordinary . . . 130 
!j >) ,, ,, ,, interleaved . . 20 o 

//, owing to any circumstances, of which the publishers shall be the judge, it 
is impossible to complete the series, the return of the balance left in their hands, 
after charging pro rata for any book or books which may have been delivered, 
shall cancel all obligation on the part of the publishers or of their agents. 

ii. Single Book only [Postage, 3d. for ordinary edition, 4d. for interleaved edition] . 

copies of Book ordinary, 2/- each ; interleaved, 3/- each 

copies of Book H, ordinary, 3/- each ; interleaved, 4/- each 

iii. Leaflets. 

Self-Testing Apparatus contained in Book 4pp. 

[Two pages of Questions ; Topics ; Formulae (Hints in B). 
Printed on one side of the paper only.] 

Practical Bibliographies : 
No. (i) Teaching and Study of History . . . 4pp. i/- 3d. 

(Together with Hints on Answering History Questions). 
No. (2) General British History 
No. (6) Special Period : 1399- 1603 . 
No. (9) „ 1688-1783 . 

No. (10) ,, 1783-1815 . 

No. (II) „ 1815-1837 . 



Dozen. 

2/- 



Single 
Copies. 

6d. 



4PP- 


i/- 


3d. 


4pp. 


i/- 


3d. 


4pp. 


i/- 


3d. 


4pp. 


i/- 


3d. 


4pp. 


V- 


3d. 



Natne M._ 



Total 



Address.. 



Please cross out the lines or words not required. 



LINDSEY'S PROBLEMS & EXERCISES IN ENGLISH HISTORY. 



£)pintons of tl)e 0reBS on Boob " B " (1899-1603). 

The only unfauourable notice received during the first three months after publication 
(on 28 June, 1901) has been inserted below in distinctive type. 



Arbroath Herald, I5rt ^»g-»j<, igoi.— The questions are fully represent- o jt ^ t.- -r- j i j 

ative of the period and are answered splendidly. Tabulated answers, Bedfordshire Times and Indepen- 
variety of type, and other means serve to make this a very helpful S'^H*' 9*'' August igoi.— Very use- 

book for revisal purposes ... All teachers should see it. f"' ™ practical school work. 

Athenseum, 2ist September, igoi. — A most valuable piece of apparatus in 

the hands of a skilful teacher or conscientious self-educator .... In 

Bookman, August, igoi. — An incentive the introduction, excellent hints are given as to method in answering 

to thought. questions, together with ten pages of sound bibliography .... As to 

the questions, we have tested them over a period with which we are 

Bookseller, August, igoi. — Mr. Lindsey thoroughly familiar, and find them, though not exhaustive, representa- 

may be congratulated on the thorough tive of the main currents, some being in the nature of book-work and 

way in which he has done his work. others of riders. We welcome a series so well planned, and, in this 

first book at any rate, well executed. All through, the experience of 
the teacher and examiner is in evidence. 

Belfast News Letter, nth July, igoi. — The answers are models of ac- d- • u r- ** ..r .v 7 

curacy and neatness, and the student who can approach them without Brrmingham Gazette, i,th July, 1901. 

referring to his books or notes will obtain high marks at his examination. —^^ strongly recommend it. 

_ . ^ -1 -I-- J.J A ^ Dally News, 26^/2 fxily, 1901. — A very full bibliography of generally 

County Council Times, xoth August Mailable books ii given, and test papers are set and answered These 

^^°^: t,i ■'r'™ ^®y ■/ ■ ^as made should prove valuable to examinees, as showing what examiners want, 

a notable achievemerit as a pioneer ^^^ jj^^f^ ^^j j^^ ^i,l recommend them to all students who want 

m educational methods. ,^ 1,^ g^i^= ^ i^ ^1^^;^ ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^i^^ 

Echo, 11th July, igoi. — The student who is working for an examination , .v . 

will find the book of very great value and, indeed, indispensable ; since Educational News, 13^ July, 1901.— 

it not only supplies him with information, but teaches him by example ^^^ . °°°^ ■""', P'^°^^ °\'°^ utmost 

how to present his knowledge .... The series .... will materially service to teachers and lecturers m 

aid in the intelligent study of English History. history. 

Guardian, nth September, igoi. — The compiler's idea is a novel one, and 

Glasgow Herald, 6th July, igoi. — Mr. presents features that may be useful to the busy schoolmaster, par- 

Lindsey has made a careful study of ticularly when the inevitable examinations are approaching, and he 

his authorities. wishes to test the results of his teaching from a standpoint other than 

his own. 

Literary World, 27^ September, igoi. — The author has done his work 

conscientiously and very satisfactorily. The questions are of high Notes and Queries, yd August, igoi. 

merit, the hints are practical, and the answers exhibit mach research — A mere eFam bOOk. 

and notable accuracy. 

Reading Mercury, I'^th July, igoi. — Intended to benefit the teacher as 

School World, August, igoi. — A book well as the pupil, with bibliographies for the one and model answers 

for the practical teacher's library. for the other. The test papers should be useful to boys and girls on 

the eve of an examination. 

Teachers' Aid, -zist September, igoi. — We cannot too strongly recommend 
the book to students of history. The questions have been answered 

in a scholarly manner, and the answers convey much information Spectator, yd August, igoi. — A useful 

concerning various topics which cannot be met with in the ordinary contribution to the great present- 

run of text-books. The style of the answers, too, will materially day art of examining and being ex- 

assist the learner to reason out certain consequences and inferences amined. 

for himself, and thus the ability to set out his knowledge in both 
logical and orderly sequence will be gradually acquired. 

Weekly Register, 6th September, 1901. — Whether as an educational 

Westminster Review, September, 1901. adjunct, or as a historical monograph, or as an exhibition of skill and 

— A remarkable example of industry patient labour, it deserves to be very carefully weighed, both by 

and scholarship. teachers and learners .... We are attracted by the writer's general 

honesty. 

W. HEFFER AND SONS, PUBLISHERS, CAMBRIDGE. 







ENGLISH HISTORY 


, 1688—1832. 


BOOK 


"G." 


Synopsis of Contents. 


Pages. 


Left-Hand Pages. 


Pages. 


Right-Hand Pages. 


iii, iv 


Preface and Practical Suggestions. 


v-vii 


Reference Summary of the Period. 


viii 


Chronological Synopsis of Events. 


I 


*Hints on Answering History Questions. 


2 


Teaching History : Method Questions. 


3 


Bibliography : Teaching of History. 


4 


Bibliography : Study of History. 


5-8 


Bibliography : General British History. 


9, 10 


Bibliography: Special, 1688-1714. 


11-13 


Bibliography; Special, 1714-1783. 


14-16 


Bibliography: Special, 1783-1815. 


17-19 


Bibliography: Special, 1815-1837. 


20 


*Notable Topics (300), 1688-1832. 


21 


*Formulae in History Questions. 


22 


•^'Thirty " Junior " Questions : 6 Papers. 


23 


^Thirty "Senior" Questions: 6 Papers. 


Pg- 


Q. 


I. 1688— 1714. ("Junior.") 


Pg. 


Q. 


I. 1688— 1714. (" Senior,") 


24 


702 


War in Ireland, 1689-1691. 


25 


707 


Constitutional Changes, 1688. 


26 


708 


New Standing Army. 


27 


713 


Act of Settlement and Bill of Rights. 


28 


718 


Anglo- Scottish Union : Causes, Terms. 


29 


719 


Scotland, 1688- 1707. 


30 


724 


Spanish Succession War : Causes, etc. 


31 


725 


Peace of Utrecht : Arguments. 


32 


728 


Ten Names : Persons and Places. 
II. 1714— 1763. 


33 


729 


Jealousy of Foreigners. 

II. 1714— 1763. 


34 


740 


George I's Title. 


35 


739 


Hanoverian Foreign Policy. 


36 


746 


Walpole : Career and Ministry. 


37 


741 


Whigs under First Two Georges. 


38 


752 


Septennial Act : Calendar. 


39 


751 


Protestant Nonconformists, 


40 


754 


Charles Edward's Movements, 1745-6. 


41 


753 


Six Acts of Parhament. 


42 


766 


Seven Years' War : Causes, etc. 
III. 1760 — 1783. 


43 


767 


Austria and George II. 

III. 1760 — 1783. 


44 


774 


" George, be a King ! " 


45 


775 


George and Ministers, 1780- 1784. 


46 


786 


America v. Great Britain. 


47 


787 


Seven Years' War & Amer. Revolution. 


48 


788 


Treaties of 1763 and 1783. 


49 


789 


Command of the Sea, 1760-1783, 


50 


792 


Irish Autonomy, 1782. 


51 


793 


Ireland, 1760-1782. 


52 


798 


Five Episodes : Importance. 
IV. 1783— 1815. 


53 


955 


Clive and Warren Hastings. 
IV, 1783— 1815. 


54 


802 


Pitt, especially 1783-1793. 


55 


805 


Regency Crisis, 1788. 


56 


808 


Fox and Nelson : Public Careers. 


57 


809 


French Revolution and England. 


58 


818 


Anglo-Irish Union : Account. 


59 


819 


Catholic Emancipation : George III. 


60 


828 


Peace of Amiens, 1802-3. 


61 


829 


Four Episodes : Connexions. 


62 


838 


Five Naval Battles : Selection. 
V. 1815— 1832. 


63 


839 


Six War Incidents, 1793-1815, 
V. 1815— 1832, 


64 


844 


Three Episodes : " Six Acts," etc. 


65 


843 


Social Discontent after the War, 


66 


848 


Navarino : Circumstances. 


67 


849 


Canning and Castlereagh. 


68 


856 


ReHgious Toleration : George IV, 


69 


857 


Catholic Emancipation : Peel, etc. 


70 


858 


Ten British Statesmen : George IV. 


71 


859 


Industrial Revolution. 


72 


860 


Parliamentary Reform : Abuses. 
VI. 1688— 1832. 


73 


861 


Parliamentary Reform : Struggle. 
VI, 1688— 1832. 


74 


974 


Chief Jacobite Attempts. 


75 


975 


Ten Party Names, 1688- 1832. 


76 


978 


Acts of Parliament : George III. 


77 


979 


Parliamentary Reform : Delay. 


78 


982 


Two Parliamentary Unions ; Terms. 


79 


983 


The Two Unions : Circumstances. 


80 


986 


List of Wars in Century XVIII. 


81 


987 


Second Hundred Years' War. 


82 


990 


Notable Events in each Reign. 


83 


991 


Marlborough and Wellington. 



*NoTiCE. — ^The pages distinguished by asterisks are issued separately, printed on one side of the paper only, and sold in 
packets at the following rates, prepaid and post-free: — 12 copies, 8d. ; 20 copies, i/- The bibliographies, etc., enumerated 
above under pp. 1-20, can also be had separately in four-page leaflets (3d. each). The publishers will be pleased to entertain 
proposals and furnish estimates to teachers or lecturers in History desiring to have any pages supplied in a modified form 
to meet the needs of special classes. [Pages 1-8, 11-16, 19 also appear in Book D.] 

Lindsey O 



